In re Marco C. CA2/2

Filed 1/28/16 In re Marco C. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Marco C. et al., Persons Coming B264470 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK08834)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARCO C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Akemi Arakaki, Judge. Affirmed. Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minors. ******

After finding that A.P. (mother) engaged in “abuse” and “neglect” within the 1 meaning of Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, the juvenile court removed her children from her custody and placed them with Marco C. (father). Father was not accused of any abuse or neglect; prior to this case, father had custody of the children every other weekend. After placing the children with father, the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over the children in order to provide mother with so-called “enhancement services” aimed at repairing her relationship with the children. Father appeals on the ground that the court was required to terminate jurisdiction once it placed the children with him. We disagree, and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father and mother have three children together—Marco (born 2005), Axel (born 2008), and L. (born 2010). Father and mother divorced, and mother married Enrique M. (husband). Mother and father shared legal custody of the children, but mother had physical custody all but two weekends a month. In December 2014, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition asking the juvenile court to assert dependency jurisdiction over all three children because (1) mother was pulling the children’s ears as an inappropriate form of discipline (§ 300, subd. (a) [physical harm]); (2) mother was not adequately protecting the children when husband pulled the children’s ears as an inappropriate form of discipline (§ 300, subd. (b)); and (3) each of the children were at risk of abuse or neglect due to the mistreatment of his siblings (§ 300, subd. (j)). Mother 2 admitted the charges, and the court in February 2015 exerted jurisdiction over the children.