In re E.M. CA2/7

Filed 4/8/25 In re E.M. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

In re E.M. et al., Persons Coming B338020 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24CCJP00598A–E)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELMER M.,

Defendant and Appellant;

MARIA R.O.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Affirmed. Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Pamela Deavours, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. No appearance for Plaintiff. ________________________ After sustaining juvenile dependency petitions, the juvenile court declared Elmer M.’s (Father) children1 dependents and placed them in the custody of Maria R.O. (Mother) under the court’s supervision. At Mother’s request, the court issued a restraining order protecting her and the children from Father. The restraining order contains an exception permitting Father to have weekly, monitored visits with the children. On appeal, Father challenges the issuance of the restraining order, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support it. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND