In re Charlotte E. CA2/4

Filed 3/18/21 In re Charlotte E. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 the Matter of CHARLOTTE E., a B304125 Person Coming Under Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 18CCJP02656A) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RACHEL E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

CHARLOTTE E., a Minor, etc.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore. Dismissed.

Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor and Respondent.

__________________________________________

INTRODUCTION The parties in this case are appellant mother Rachel E. and her respondent daughter Charlotte E.1 Charlotte was detained from Mother in April 2018 and placed with her maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. Mother was granted monitored visits, and Charlotte’s maternal grandfather (MGF) was later approved as a monitor. In December 2019, upon an oral request by Charlotte’s counsel, the court ordered that MGF no longer be permitted to monitor visits, and that future visits take place at a DCFS office. Mother appealed the order, arguing the court abused its discretion in granting Charlotte’s request, both because the court should have required Charlotte to file a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 before changing the parameters of visitation, and because the evidence did not support the ordered change. In October 2020, after Mother filed her opening brief, the court placed Charlotte in a legal guardianship with her grandmother and step-grandfather and terminated jurisdiction. Charlotte argued that the termination of