In re June P. CA2/4

Filed 9/21/16 In re June P. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re JUNE P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY B268704 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND (Los Angeles County FAMILY SERVICES, Super. Ct. No. DK06363)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Jennifer L. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary Wickham, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Michael P. (Father), father of June P., appeals the juvenile court’s order denying him unmonitored visitation. The court was prepared to grant Father such visitation, but insisted that it could not do so until Father secured from the criminal court an order modifying a previously issued restraining order. Father contends that rule 8.34 of the Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules (Local Rule 8.34) requires a juvenile judicial officer who has been persuaded that unmonitored visitation would be in a child’s best interest to initiate contact with any judicial officer who issued a criminal restraining order to obtain modification of the restraining order, and that the juvenile court erred in failing to follow the rule.1 We agree and reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND June was born in March 2013. Shortly after her birth, Mother obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting Father from contacting her, June or the maternal grandmother with whom they lived. Later that month, Father was arrested and remained incarcerated for several months. After his arrest, the court issued a permanent restraining order, expiring in June 2023. Mother, who tested positive for marijuana after Father’s arrest, agreed to participate in voluntary family maintenance services offered by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). However, she failed to participate and failed to keep in contact with DCFS. In July 2014, DCFS filed a petition under