In re M.C. CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Apr 25, 2022 No. B312267Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court's exit order did not improperly condition visitation on conjoint therapy, but rather established monitored visitation based on the child's needs, leaving future modifications to the family court.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by conditioning unmonitored visitation on conjoint therapy without providing a mechanism for such therapy.
Whether the father's general objection at the hearing was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with DCFS’s interpretation of the order and affirm.”

“The juvenile court did not order father to participate in conjoint therapy, nor did it condition any future change in visitation on father’s participation in counseling.”

“The court’s articulation of its reasoning for requiring monitored visits did not render the order illusory.”

Filed 4/25/22 In re M.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.C., a Person Coming B312267 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 20CCJP03695, 20CCJP03695A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

M.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Judge, Pro Tempore of the Juvenile Court. Affirmed.

Elizabeth A. Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant M.C. (father) appeals an exit order issued under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.41 upon termination of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over father’s son, M. Father contends the juvenile court erred by ordering that he and M. complete conjoint therapy without providing a means for completing that therapy. Respondent Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) disagrees with father’s interpretation of the order, asserting that the court ordered only monitored visitation and cited father’s failure to complete conjoint therapy as the reason the visits would remain monitored, but did not order therapy at all. We agree with DCFS’s interpretation of the order and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Background and previous appeal The underlying facts are described in our previous opinion, In re M.C. (July 22, 2021, No. B308704 [nonpub. opn.]), and we summarize them only briefly here. Eleven-year-old M. came to the attention of DCFS on June 1, 2020, after suffering injuries resulting from discipline by father. M. reported that on various occasions, father punched him, choked him, hit him with a belt and hangers, chased him with a knife, and threatened to kill him. M. further reported that father drank alcohol every day and got

In re M.C. CA2/4

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

COLLINS, J.

MANELLA, P. J.

CURREY, J.

AI Brief