In re L.M. CA2/8

Filed 8/3/22 In re L.M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.M. et. al., Persons Coming B316381 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. DK14789A-B) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Susan Ser, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Maryann M. Goode, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Dawyn Harrison, Acting County Counsel, David Michael Miller, Deputy Counsel, for Respondent. ___________________________

Appellant Larry M. (Father) appeals from an order granting legal guardianship of his children, L.M. and S.M. (Children), to their paternal grandmother without also ordering a minimum frequency and duration of parental visitation. On appeal, Father claims that the juvenile court abused its discretion by giving the legal guardian the discretion to determine his right to visitation because it failed to specify the frequency and duration of his visitation. We, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department), agree that the juvenile court erred by not ordering the frequency and duration of his visits. We disagree with the contention that the juvenile court erred by delegating to the guardian the decision of whether the visits should be monitored. The record actually reflects the court itself ordered monitored visits. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND We recite only those facts relevant to the narrow issue on appeal. On June 25, 2021, the juvenile court held a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing.1 During the hearing, Father requested at least one unmonitored visit with the Children per week. The court denied that request, responding that Father’s visits would be “worked out with the legal guardian. So I’m going to order just mutually agreed upon visits and . . . the monitor.” The court determined that legal guardianship was the appropriate permanent plan for the Children, granted the Children’s paternal grandmother legal guardianship, and, in its written order, ordered Father’s visits