In re E.M. CA2/5

Filed 3/6/23 In re E.M. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.M., Jr. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B316751

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 21CCJP02984A-B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Dismissed. Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

E.M. (Father) appeals from juvenile court orders assuming dependency jurisdiction over his sons, E.M., Jr. (age 9) and J.M. (age 17), and removing both children from his custody. Father’s opening brief makes clear he is only challenging the jurisdiction finding and removal order pertaining to J.M., his older adopted son, and not E.M., Jr. Father also asserts the juvenile court did not oversee an adequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California law. The parties are familiar with the facts, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261-1264 [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)