In re D.W. CA4/1

Filed 7/29/21 In re D.W. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re D.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078740 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. J519399A-B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rohanee Zapanta, Judge. Dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

B.G. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order issued at the contested

hearing on March 11, 2021 under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26, establishing a legal guardianship for her son, T.L. Mother’s other son, D.W., was also before the juvenile court on March 11, 2021, for a contested family maintenance review hearing under section 364, and the

juvenile court ordered that D.W. remain in the care of T.W. (Father).2 In her opening brief, Mother’s sole challenge is to the juvenile court’s visitation order issued pursuant to T.L.’s legal guardianship. She contends that the juvenile court improperly authorized T.L.’s legal guardian to determine the frequency and duration of Mother’s visitation with T.L., and requests a remand with instructions that the juvenile court issue an order specifying both the frequency and duration of Mother’s visits. In a letter brief, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) concedes that the juvenile court erred in leaving it to the legal guardian to determine the frequency and duration of Mother’s visitation with T.L. Mother and the Agency have filed a joint stipulation for the immediate issuance of a remittitur as to both children. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).) The parties acknowledge that Mother has not raised any challenge to the juvenile court’s order as to D.W., and they anticipate that Mother’s appeal as to D.W. will be dismissed. As to T.L., the parties set forth their agreement to a limited remand with instructions to the juvenile court to specify the frequency and duration of Mother’s visitation with T.L. under the legal guardianship.