In re O.M. CA2/8

Filed 3/19/21 In re O.M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re O.M., a Person Coming B306891 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP01482B) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Joshua M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Brett Bianco, Judge. Dismissed. Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Joshua M., the father of O.M., challenges a juvenile court’s order denying his request for unmonitored visits with O.M. After the father filed this appeal, the juvenile court returned O.M. to the father’s custody. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. Undesignated code references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. I We brief the events leading to the visitation order the father challenges. In February 2020, the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral after newborn O.M. and his mother tested positive for amphetamines. The day after O.M.’s birth, the father denied knowing about the mother’s recent drug use. The father admitted using methamphetamine “on and off” for several years but he denied current use. The father tested positive for methamphetamine in late February 2020. In March 2020, the Department filed a petition alleging O.M. was at substantial risk of serious harm under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) because of O.M.’s positive drug test and because of the mother’s and father’s drug use. The father tested negative for drugs six times in May and June 2020. He attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings and completed a parenting class. At a joint jurisdiction and disposition hearing on July 7, 2020, the juvenile court sustained an amended section 300 petition. It removed O.M. from the mother’s and father’s custody. The court denied the father’s request for unmonitored visits. The father appealed, contending the court abused its discretion by denying unmonitored visits because, he argued, no