In re S.Y. CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 2026 No. B343289Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a non-offending parent to participate in parenting classes and counseling as part of his reunification plan, as these services were reasonably designed to address obstacles to reunification given the parent's lack of insight and history.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering a non-offending parent to participate in parenting classes and counseling when no direct nexus was found between his criminal history and the dependency findings.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what reunification services are appropriate to protect the child’s interest and achieve the end of family reunification.”

“when a court is aware of other parental issues that were not the basis for jurisdiction but that would “impede the parent’s ability to reunify with his child, the court may address them in the reunification plan.””

Filed 3/3/26 In re S.Y. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.Y., et al., Persons Coming B343289 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 24CCJP02626, 24CCJP02626B, 24CCJP02626C) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent.

I.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cristina Gutierrez Legaspi, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Father, I.C., appeals from the disposition order by the juvenile court requiring him to participate in parenting classes and counseling as part of his reunification services for his children, Sa. and Sm. Father, who was non- offending, contends that there was insufficient evidence that his court- ordered case plan addressed any of his issues that led to dependency proceedings. We find no error and affirm. Father and mother, H.Y., have two children together, Sa. (born 2014) and Sm. (born 2015). Mother also has an older child, Sv. (born 2008) with B.W.2 Prior to the August 2024 referral at issue here, the family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in 2016 based on domestic violence between mother and father. The court sustained a petition alleging that on numerous occasions, father struck, kicked, choked, and threatened to kill mother in the presence of the children. The court terminated jurisdiction in 2017, awarding sole legal and physical custody of the children to mother, with monitored visits of Sa. and Sm. for father once he was released from custody.

In re S.Y. CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

ZUKIN, P. J.

MORI, J.

AI Brief