In re S.V. CA2/5

Filed 4/28/23 In re S.V. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.V., a Person Coming B315819 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 19LJJP00882A)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

F.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon and Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. —————————— Father appeals from a dispositional order after a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 342. Father does not challenge the jurisdictional findings that his then 15-year-old daughter was at substantial risk of harm based on father’s physical abuse, substance abuse, and inability to provide appropriate care due to daughter’s behavioral problems, including drug abuse. Father only challenges the portion of the dispositional order requiring monitored visitation with daughter. Father also contends the juvenile court erroneously failed to ensure that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) complied with requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). We agree with the Department that the juvenile court’s monitored visitation order was not an abuse of discretion, and we find father’s ICWA challenge to be moot. 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; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261–1264 [discussion of issue on appeal need not discuss every fact or legal authority raised by parties].)