In re K.M. CA2/1

Filed 2/28/22 In re K.M. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re K.M., a Person Coming Under B310694 the Juvenile Court Law,

(Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK79117) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.P.,

Defendant and Appellant;

T.M.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.P. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent T.M.

____________________________________

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. Accordingly, we provide very limited factual and procedural background. The dependency proceedings giving rise to this appeal concern K.M., the daughter of M.P. (Mother) and T.M. (Father). When the juvenile court concluded its jurisdiction over K.M. and ended proceedings, it granted sole legal and physical custody to Father, with monitored visitation for Mother. The order to this effect addresses numerous details regarding Mother’s visitation rights, such as the frequency and duration of visits and the selection of a monitor. In the portion of the order addressing “reasons for no or supervised visitation” (capitalization omitted), the court noted that Mother “ha[d] not made substantial progress in the following court-ordered programs”: “[i]ndividual counseling” and “[o]ther . . . Mother must complete five . . . random or on demand drug tests and her Marijuana levels must be under 500 ng/ml.” At the hearing, the court described these provisions as a “rider” imposing testing and counseling requirements on Mother. Nowhere in the order, and at no point at the hearing, did the court expressly limit or even address the circumstances under which the custody order could be modified. Mother appeals from this custody order, arguing that the testing and counseling requirements improperly “purport[ ] to