In re T.M. CA1/4

Filed 5/31/23 In re T.M. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN HEALTH AND SERVICES, A165709 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV170099) D.M., Defendant and Appellant.

Damian M. (father) appeals from a dispositional order on a Welfare & Institutions Code1 section 387 petition removing his child, 9- year-old Tamarin M., from his custody, and then terminating the court’s jurisdiction with a grant of sole physical and legal custody to Tamarin M.’s mother and bi-monthly visitation for father. (§§ 387, 361, 362.4.) Father argues that substantial evidence does not support the removal order, and the court abused its discretion in making the custody and visitation order. We affirm.

All further references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code 1

unless otherwise specified.

1

The parties are familiar with the facts and lengthy procedural history of this case, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 [“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263 [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In 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”]). DISCUSSION The Removal Findings Father first challenges the dispositional order removing Tamarin M., arguing there was insufficient evidence supporting the court’s findings of substantial danger to the minor if she were returned home and no reasonable means to protect her without removal. Where removal from a parent is at issue, the court must make removal findings under section 361, subdivision (c)—that is, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the [child] if the [child] were returned home,” that there are no reasonable means short of removal to protect the minor, and that the Department made reasonable efforts to avoid