In re M.V. CA1/1

Filed 2/13/25 In re M.V. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re M.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169985, A170619 v. (San Francisco City & County N.V., Super. Ct. No. JD22-3058) Defendant and Appellant.

N.V. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s written exit orders, contending they do not conform to the court’s oral pronouncements as reflected in the reporter’s transcript. We conclude the oral pronouncements, which conflict with the written exit orders regarding mother’s responsibility to pay for visitation, control. Accordingly, we remand for the juvenile court to make corrections and, otherwise, we affirm the challenged orders.

1

I. BACKGROUND1 In February 2022, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300 with respect to M.V. (minor). (In re M.V. (Sept. 13, 2023, A166101, A166502) [nonpub. opn.].) In September 2023, the Agency filed the operative supplemental dependency petition pursuant to section 342, alleging jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c). Between November 2023 and February 2024, the juvenile court conducted a contested hearing on, among other matters, the section 342 petition. At the final hearing on February 16, 2024 (hearing), the juvenile court ordered sole legal and physical custody of minor to J.M. (father) with supervised visitation to mother, dismissed the petition, and terminated dependency jurisdiction. Regarding mother’s visitation, the court ordered, “The visitation will be two supervised visits per week. . . . The visits will be through Rally [Family Visitation Center]. The mother, for the first 12 visits, must pay 100 percent to make up for the missed visits. While there were approximately 16, quote, ‘missed visits,’ some were because the young person was sick or the mother was sick or there was a transportation issue with the Agency. That’s why the Court is not ordering all 16 [visits]. The Court is ordering the first dozen to be paid 100 percent by the mother, none by the father. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . After the 12 visits, then it will go 50/50.” Minor’s counsel agreed to prepare the written exit orders.