In re A.R. CA1/4

Filed 2/26/14 In re A.R. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re A.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, A139338 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. JD12-3147, ANNA R., JD12-3147A) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION At the conclusion of the proceedings in this dependency case, the juvenile court orally issued a custody and visitation order, and terminated the dependency as no longer necessary. A written order purporting to memorialize the oral order was prepared by the minors’ counsel, and later signed and filed by the court. On appeal, the minors’ mother does not challenge the substance of the oral order, but argues that the written order is defective as to form, and fails to comply with the oral order in two respects. We agree, and therefore vacate the written order (but not the oral order), and remand for the entry of a corrected written order. BACKGROUND Appellant Anna R. (Mother) is divorced from V.R. (Father), the father of her two school-age sons, A.R. and M.R., collectively minors. The San Francisco Human Services

1

Agency (the Agency) initiated dependency proceedings in May 2012 in the wake of an incident in which there was a relatively minor physical altercation between Mother and M.R., then age 10, after which M.R. ran away from Mother. During the course of the dependency proceedings, A.R. continued to live with Mother, and M.R. lived with Father. Mother initially had supervised visitation with M.R., and then progressed to weekly unsupervised visitation. A.R. did not want visitation with Father, and they had only minimal contact. By February 2013,1 the Agency reported to the juvenile court that the reasons for the dependency had been addressed, and recommended that the dependency be terminated. The parents agreed that the dependency should be dismissed, but were unable to agree on a post-dependency custody and visitation arrangement. On July 1, the juvenile court held a hearing on the issue of post-dependency custody and visitation, heard argument from counsel, and took the matter under submission. On July 5, the juvenile court announced its decision orally on the record from the bench (the oral order), and directed counsel for minors to prepare a written order (the written order) memorializing the oral order. The oral order provided that Mother and Father would have joint legal and physical custody of minors, and that A.R. would reside with Mother and M.R. would reside with Father. Mother was to have visitation with M.R. overnight every Thursday night and on alternate weekends from Friday after school until the start of school on Monday, except on weekends when M.R. had a chess tournament. M.R. would spend his winter school break with Mother and his spring and fall school breaks with Father. Starting in 2014, M.R. would spend the first half of each summer with Father and the second half with Mother. By September 1, Mother was to select four Jewish holidays on which M.R. would spend at least one day with her, and more time if M.R. so desired. M.R. was to spend each Mother’s Day with Mother and each Father’s Day with Father.