In re Joseph M. CA2/1

Filed 7/9/14 In re Joseph M. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re JOSEPH M. et al., Persons Coming B252127 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK98575)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH M., SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Emma Castro, Commissioner. Affirmed. Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________________

Minors Joseph (age 6), Andrew (age 5), Madilynn (age 3), and Autumn (age 21 months) were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect).1 Joseph M., Sr. (Father), appeals from the court’s September 24, 2013 order denying him a contested hearing on the issue of visitation. M.M. (Mother) is not a party to this appeal. We conclude the juvenile court did not deny Father due process by refusing him a contested hearing on the issue of visitation, as he had an adequate procedure available to him for protecting his interests, which the court brought to his attention. We affirm. BACKGROUND The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) sought jurisdiction over the minors due to reports of domestic violence perpetrated by Father on Mother. At a jurisdictional hearing on March 26, 2013, Father submitted a signed waiver of his rights. Father pleaded no contest to an amended section 300 petition. After mediation, Father and Mother agreed the minors would be placed in the care of Mother, “family maintenance services” to be provided to Mother, and “family reunification services” to be provided to Father. The juvenile court sustained the amended petition, declared the minors dependents of the court, placed the minors in the care of Mother, ordered DCFS to provide “Family Maintenance Services” to the “parents,” ordered Father to attend a DCFS-approved 52- week domestic violence program, plus parenting classes, and ordered Father to have monitored visitation. Notwithstanding the plan agreed to by the parties after mediation, the court did not order that family reunification services be provided to Father. By June 25, 2013, Father had reported to DCFS that he had almost completed his 52-week domestic violence program and had provided DCFS with a certificate indicating he had completed a parenting class. On that date the juvenile court held a progress hearing. It ordered DCFS to meet and confer with Father to work out a visitation