In re A.E. CA2/4

Filed 8/15/23 In re A.E. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re A.E., B316543 (Los Angeles County a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP07594C) Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tara Newman, Judge. Affirmed. Jacques Alexander Love, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Assistant Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Father appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring monitored visitation with his daughter. Father’s repeated acts of domestic violence and failure to seek counseling for his uncontrolled aggression support the juvenile court’s decision. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the custody and visitation order.

DISCUSSION The juvenile court has authority to issue custody and visitation orders when it terminates jurisdiction over a minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4, subd. (a).)1 Such orders are commonly referred to as “exit orders.” (In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455.) In issuing exit orders, juvenile courts look to the totality of the circumstances to assess what outcome is in the child’s best interests. (In re J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 963–964.) A reviewing court will not overturn an exit order unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or absurd. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) The sole contention on appeal is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering monitored visits between M.E. (father) and his daughter, A.E.2 We discuss only the facts germane to the one issue raised. Father argues without citing to the record: “[A.E.] would not be in danger” if she had unmonitored visits. Father supports his argument the juvenile