In re R.G. CA2/2

Filed 12/11/25 In re R.G. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re R.G. et al., Persons Coming B343394 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP04876)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.

Benjamin Ekenes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

This is the third appeal in this case by T.G. (Father), father of a three-year old son, R.G., and twenty-month old daughter, T.G. In the first appeal, Father sought to reverse the juvenile court’s January 2023 order asserting dependency jurisdiction over R.G., limiting Father’s education rights to his child, and requiring that his visits be supervised. (In re [R.]G. (July 18, 2024, B326637) [nonpub. opn.].) We affirmed. Father’s second appeal challenged the juvenile court’s December 2023 termination of his reunification services for R.G., and the bypass of any reunification services for T.G. (In re [R.]G., et al. (Apr. 22, 2025, B333730) [nonpub. opn.] (R.G. & T.G.).) We affirmed. Father now challenges the juvenile court’s decision to deny his petition, filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,1 to seek modification of the court’s denial of reunification services. Specifically, Father sought to have the children placed in his home, or alternatively to be restored reunification services with monitored visitation. Once again, we affirm.