In re Ar.P. CA2/1

Filed 6/30/22 In re Ar.P. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Ar.P., A Person Coming Under B314224 the Juvenile Court Law. _________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP01447) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

P.P. (Father) appeals various orders of the juvenile court in dependency proceedings regarding his son, Ar.P. On appeal, Father argues for the first time that the juvenile court should not have terminated those proceedings. He contends that Father and Ar.P. were making progress toward repairing their damaged relationship, that terminating juvenile court jurisdiction will threaten that progress, and thus that continuing jurisdiction would have been in Ar.P.’s best interests. Even if we broadly construe Ar.P.’s notice of appeal as identifying the order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction, Father failed to object to the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction below, and has thus forfeited the argument. Accordingly, we affirm.1

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW The instant dependency proceedings began in 2018 when the juvenile court took jurisdiction over Ar.P. and his brother, Father’s now-adult son A.P., based on “Father’s history of volatile and aggressive conduct and because Father threatened to harm A.P. with a baseball bat.”2 The baseball bat incident resulted in a criminal restraining order against Father and a conviction for “threaten[ing] to use force on a person ([c]hild [a]buse).” “[T]he petition also alleged that the children did not want to visit” Father, who lived separately from the mother. The children continued to refuse contact with Father during the first