In re K.H. CA2/5

Filed 11/20/13 In re K.H. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re K.H., a Person Coming Under the B247467 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK92721)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rudolph A. Diaz, Judge. Affirmed. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

Father Michael H. appeals from an exit order limiting his contact with his son K.H. to monitored visits pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4.1 He contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to give him adequate notice of its recommendation that his visits with his son be supervised, and that the dependency court abused its discretion when it terminated jurisdiction over the matter with a family law order that restricted his visitation rights unfairly. We affirm.

FACTS

The Department filed its original dependency petition in this case on March 26, 2012, alleging under subdivision (a) of section 300 that K. was at risk of harm due to the parents’ history of engaging in violent confrontations in his presence. The Department identified a specific incident on March 20, 2012, during which father was alleged to have struck mother in the face with his fist. It also alleged prior incidents of domestic violence. The same allegations were cited as the basis for a separate count alleging K. was a child described by subdivision (b) of section 300. Father denied the prior incidents of domestic violence. Father was incarcerated at the time the Department filed its petition. On March 26, 2012, the dependency court entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting father from contact with mother or K. but permitting supervised visitation. The court also made a prima facie finding on the petition and ordered K. detained from father, while ordering that K. remain in the home. On April 23, 2012, a jurisdiction/disposition report was filed, stating among other things, that father was enrolled in a 52-week domestic violence course.