In re A.T. CA2/8

Filed 6/24/14 In re A.T. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.T., Person Coming Under the B250532 Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. CK74200) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Anthony Trendacosta, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Tracey F. Dodds, Deputy County Counsel for Respondent.

__________________________

Mother N.F. appeals from the juvenile court’s exit orders regarding visitation with daughter A.T. after the court terminated its dependency jurisdiction and gave father K.T. sole legal and physical custody of the child. We affirm those orders.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In November 2012 we affirmed a juvenile court order placing seven-year-old A.T. with her father after the court sustained an amended petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) alleging that A.T. was a dependent of the court because mother had been coaching the minor to falsely accuse father of sexually abusing her when in fact the abuse was committed by mother’s nephew. (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children and Family Services v. N.F. (Nov. 29, 2012) [nonpub. opn.].) The court had previously taken jurisdiction of A.T. in 2008 after father was wrongly blamed for sexually abusing the child, finding that A.T. had been a victim of sexual abuse, but that someone else in the household had been the perpetrator.1 In May 2013 the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over A.T. and placed her with father, granting him sole legal and physical custody of the child. The court entered exit orders regarding monitored visitation by mother that ordered mother to pay for the costs of the monitor. The court did not specify the frequency and duration of her visits. Mother contends the juvenile court erred because: (1) it cut her off when she tried to argue at the hearing; (2) there was no showing she had the ability to pay for a monitor; and (3) the order failed to specify how often she was allowed to visit the minor.2