In re A.M. CA2/1

Filed 10/30/14 In re A.M. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under B254849 the Juvenile Court Law.

(Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK91750) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAMON M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carlos Vazquez, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Ramon M. (Father) appeals from the order of the juvenile court denying his petition for modification of custody and resumption of reunification services with respect to his daughters A.M. and H.M.1 We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW In February 2012, a car driven by Father was involved in an accident. A.M., age 15 months, her sister H.M., age 3 months, and their mother were passengers in the car. Although no one was seriously injured, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) detained the children because Father tested positive for methamphetamine. The children’s maternal aunt, with whom the family had been living, told a DCFS worker that Father had a long history of drug use. She also told the worker that the parents engaged in physical assaults on each other and that this violence was affecting A.M.’s emotional wellbeing. DCFS filed a petition to have the children declared dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b).2 In March 2012, the court sustained the petition under section 300 subdivision (b) based on the parents’ domestic violence and Father’s history of drug use. The court ordered Father to complete a drug program with random testing and ordered both parents to attend parenting and domestic violence classes and individual counseling. Both parents were granted monitored visitation and family reunification services. At the six-month review hearing in October 2012, the court ordered continued reunification services. The court found that the parents had consistently participated in visitation and had made progress in resolving the issues that led to their children’s dependency.