In re Ty N. CA2/1

Filed 5/28/15 In re Ty N. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TY N., a Person Coming Under the B257074 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK03853)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Julie Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed. Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________

SUMMARY D.N. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s visitation order entered at disposition and the referee’s removal order. Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion because the visitation order in effect provides for no immediate visitation for Father with his son. Father also contends that the referee’s removal order was invalid because the order was never signed by a judge. We disagree with these contentions and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father is a registered sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 2901 and was on post release community supervision (PRCS) supervised by the Probation Department at the time of the events underlying the juvenile court proceedings. On February 26, 2014, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition (Petition) on behalf of Ty, who was at the time five years old. The Petition made identical allegations under subdivisions (b) and (d), alleging that Ty’s mother (Mother) created a detrimental and endangering home environment and failed to protect him, by allowing Father (the biological and presumed father) to reside in their home and have unlimited access to Ty when Mother knew Father was a registered sex offender and not supposed to reside with or be alone with children.2