In re Marvin A. CA2/2
Filed 12/3/15 In re Marvin A. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re Marvin A., a Person Coming Under B262999 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK85110)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Marvin A., Sr.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rudolph A. Diaz, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minor. ******
The sole question on appeal is whether a juvenile court order placing a child with a legal guardian and granting the child’s father “[m]onitored visitation as arranged with Legal Guardian . . . at least once per month” constitutes an excessive delegation of the court’s “‘power to regulate visitation between minors determined to be dependent children . . . and their parents . . . .’ [Citation.]” (In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557.) We conclude that it is, and reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In November 2010, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition imploring the juvenile court to exert dependency jurisdiction over then-18-month-old Marvin A. and two of his half-siblings. As against 1 Marvin A., Sr. (father), the court sustained allegations that he was unable to provide regular care to Marvin due to his history of substance abuse and criminal behavior and his failure to provide Marvin with the necessities of life within the meaning of Welfare 2 and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). Over the next several years, Marvin was placed with his mother, with his maternal grandmother, with his paternal aunt and uncle, and finally with his half-sister Jacqueline C.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)