In re N.O. CA2/4

Filed 8/4/25 In re N.O. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re N.O. a Person Coming B340207 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 23CCJP02780, 23CCJP02780A ) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent. v. L.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Lori N. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Courtney Fisher, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Father L.O. asserts that the juvenile court had insufficient evidence to assert jurisdiction over his then-one-year-old daughter, N., under sections 300, subdivision (b) and 342. He further contends the court erred in ordering N. removed from his care pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c). We find no error and affirm. BACKGROUND Eight months into the family’s open dependency case related to domestic violence, the court returned one-year-old N. to father’s physical custody at the recommendation of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Six weeks later, father and N. were involved in a single- car collision with the center divider on the 10 freeway. First responders arrived on the scene at 1:30 a.m. and found father in the driver’s seat, unconscious and smelling of alcohol. The car was damaged, and the airbags were deployed. N. was securely strapped into her car seat and was uninjured. Father was

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the full factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.