In re V.G. CA2/5

Filed 8/10/22 In re V.G. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE In re V.G., et al., Persons Coming B312283 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 20CCJP02413 B, C, D) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.G. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

INTRODUCTION Father appeals from the juvenile court’s exit and custody orders, after the court found jurisdiction over his children six months earlier based on father’s domestic violence and child abuse. The orders required father’s visitation with the three children to be monitored. Father argues the monitoring condition was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm as father has forfeited this argument. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parents have four children together, ages 16, 14, 11 and 91 Father also has an older child by another woman; this older half-sibling is mentioned in the jurisdictional findings, but is not part of this dependency case. Only the three youngest children are involved in the present appeal. The parents were married in 2010. In 2020, mother asked father for a divorce and began seeing another man. 1. Jurisdiction On September 22, 2020, the juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition and found jurisdiction over the four children based on father’s domestic violence toward mother, father’s physical abuse of the children, and father’s inappropriate conduct toward his oldest child (the half-sibling).2 The sustained allegations included: (1) in April 2020, while in front of two of the children, father smashed the windows of a car occupied by mother, injuring her, and then

1 These are the ages of the children at the time jurisdiction was terminated in March 2021.