In re A.J. CA2/4

Filed 2/18/21 In re A.J. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.J. et al., Persons Coming B305505 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP07025)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SAVANNAH R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Commissioner. Affirmed. Nicole Williams for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Savannah R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating its jurisdiction and issuing an exit order over one of her children, A.J., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4.1 Mother does not challenge the court’s termination of jurisdiction over the child, or its exit order granting Salvador J. (father) sole legal and physical custody of A.J. with monitored visitation ordered for mother. Rather, she contends that the exit order impermissibly restricts the family court’s authority to modify her visitation with A.J. in the future. We conclude that the order, properly construed, places no limitations on the family court’s authority to modify the order at a later time. As so construed, we affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A.J. (born Feb. 2017) and her half-siblings, K.E. and A.E., came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Family and Children Services (DCFS) in October 2019 after mother gave birth to A.E. and tested positive for methamphetamine and Xanax.2 DCFS filed two section 300 petitions alleging the children were at risk of serious harm based on mother abusing drugs while pregnant with A.E., which caused the child to be born with a detrimental condition; mother’s history of abusing drugs while K.E. was in her care; and mother’s