In re O.G. CA2/4

Filed 10/28/25 In re O.G. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 O. G., a Person Coming B341033 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 24CCJP01819, 24CCJP01819A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent. v. M. G.,

Appellant.

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Father M.G. appeals from a juvenile court exit order terminating dependency jurisdiction over his daughter, O. G., and awarding sole physical custody to her mother. Father argues that the court erred by removing O. G. from his physical custody, requiring monitored visits until he “completed” counseling, and ordering him to pay for a professional visitation monitor. We affirm. BACKGROUND The dependency court took jurisdiction over O. G. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), sustaining an allegation that O. G. was at risk due to father’s history of mental and emotional problems, including bipolar disorder; manic and erratic behavior; verbal aggression and paranoid statements; and noncompliance with mental health services and medication.2

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 We do not recite the full factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished, and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court's decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].)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. 2 The court also issued a restraining order protecting mother from father but did not include O. G. as a protected party.