In re Juan M. CA2/3

Filed 4/3/15 In re Juan M. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JUAN M., et al., Persons Coming B256827 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK74904) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carlos E. Vasquez, Judge. Affirmed.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mark J. Saladino, Dawyn R. Harrison, Tracey F. Dodds, Office of County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

INTRODUCTION Father Juan M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating its jurisdiction and ordering Mother to have sole physical custody of their two children, 12-year-old Juan and nine-year-old Juanita, and Father to have supervised visits with the children conducted by a paid professional monitor at Father’s expense. Father argues that the court abused its discretion in making the exit order because it relied on testimony from the children, who Father asserts had “limited ability to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation.” We affirm as substantial evidence of Father’s unresolved anger problems and the children’s reasonable fear of Father supports the court’s discretion in making this exit order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 362.4. FACTS2 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The children were adjudicated to be abused and neglected by the juvenile court pursuant to section 300 in October 2012. The court sustained allegations that Father inappropriately physically disciplined Juan by choking him and striking Juan’s head with a fist, and threatening to harm Juan with a hammer. The court sustained allegations that Father inappropriately disciplined Juanita by striking her with his hands and a belt. The court also found that Mother had failed to supervise the children. This Court subsequently affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings in an unpublished opinion.