In re Roger G. CA2/3

Filed 12/13/13 In re Roger G. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re ROGER G., a Person Coming Under B247829 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK92943) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIA R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony Trendacosta, Referee. Affirmed in part and reversed in part, with directions. Janice A. Jenkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Appellant Maria R. (mother) appeals a juvenile court order on the ground that it conflicts with the court’s oral ruling regarding her right to visit her son Roger G. (Roger). We agree, in part, with mother’s argument. We thus reverse the order, in part, with directions for the court to enter a new order accurately reflecting the court’s ruling. BACKGROUND On August 8, 2012, the juvenile court declared Roger a dependent child of the court. He was about 16 months old at the time. The court also granted physical custody of the child to his biological father, Roger G., Sr. (father), who was 14 years old, on the condition that he reside with Roger’s paternal grandmother. Father and paternal grandmother lived in Indianapolis, Indiana. Additionally, the court granted mother visitation rights and family reunification services, including individual counseling and drug treatment and testing programs.1 On September 24, 2012, the juvenile court entered an order requiring respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) to arrange for Roger to be transported to father’s Indiana home. In compliance with this order, the Department transported Roger to father’s home on October 4, 2012. According to a Department report, the juvenile court’s order requiring the relocation of Roger to Indiana greatly upset mother. Mother stopped attending counseling and her drug program and ran away from her foster mother’s home with her boyfriend.2 Mother was 17 years old when she ran away. Mother’s foster mother advised the Department that mother continued to use illegal drugs and that mother “wanted to be out of the [foster care] system once she is of age.”