In re An. M. CA2/8

Filed 6/4/15 In re An. M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 An.M. et al., Persons Coming Under B260533 the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. DK00667) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

SUMMARY R.M., the father, appeals from a juvenile court custody order that terminated dependency jurisdiction over his two daughters, An.M. and Ab.M., and placed them in the sole physical and legal custody of their mother, with monitored visits for father. Father contends the court should have given the parents joint legal custody. He also contends the court’s written exit orders erroneously required father to participate in a parenting course, even though the court’s oral ruling indicated father had already completed that course. We direct modification of the exit orders to conform to the court’s oral ruling, but otherwise affirm the court’s orders. FACTS This is father’s second appeal in this dependency proceeding. In April 2014, the juvenile court entered jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning the two children. The jurisdictional order found that father, a war veteran, had a history of engaging in violent alterations, and had physically assaulted his 86-year- old grandmother for no reason. Father’s behavior, and previous violent altercations with the mother, placed the children at risk of physical harm. At the time, father and mother shared custody of the two girls, with father having 30 percent custody and mother 70 percent. The juvenile court removed the children from father and ordered the children placed with mother, with monitored visits for father at least twice a week. The court also ordered father to attend and complete a domestic violence anger management, 52-week certified batterer intervention program, parenting education, and individual counseling, and ordered a psychological assessment and psychiatric evaluation. Father appealed, and in December 2014 we affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (In re An.M. (Dec. 31, 2014, B256924) [nonpub. opn.].) In the interim, on October 1, 2014, the court held a review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364. (Under section 364, when a child is not removed from