In re Precious N. CA2/2

Filed 1/25/16 In re Precious N. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 PRECIOUS N., a Person Coming B265933 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK97726)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERIC H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Judge. Reversed and remanded. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________________________

Eric H. (Father) appeals a dependency court exit order that provides for visitation but does not set forth the frequency and duration of Father’s visits. Because the dependency court improperly delegated the determination of Father’s visitation schedule, reversal is required. BACKGROUND Father’s daughter, Precious N., was born in 2001. In February 2014, the dependency court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 petition alleging Father physically abused Precious and engaged in a violent physical altercation with Precious’s mother, Peace N. (Mother). Precious was ordered a dependent of the court, was removed from Father’s custody, and was placed in the custody of Mother. Father was granted monitored visitation and provided with reunification services. In January 2015, this court affirmed the dependency’s courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (In re Precious N. (Jan. 29, 2015, B255648) [nonpub. opn.].) During visits in spring 2014, Precious wore headphones, played on a tablet computer, and ignored Father. Father, on the other hand, appeared to generally act appropriately. Precious told a Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) social worker that she did not want to attend visits with Father, but the social worker reminded her that the visits were court ordered. When asked what Father could do to improve their relationship, Precious responded that if Father apologized, it would be a “game changer.” Father stated he would apologize, but at later visits Precious did not talk to Father, and Father did not apologize. The visits eventually stopped because the volunteer monitor did not want to continue since Precious was not participating. The social worker attempted to find a therapist to provide conjoint counseling for Precious and Father, but various therapists refused to provide the counseling because the case involved domestic violence. Father claimed to be enrolled in a parenting class and individual therapy, but these claims could not be verified.