In re D.B. CA2/4

Filed 8/31/23 In re D.B. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.B., et al., Persons B320301 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 20LJJP00624, 20LJJP00624B, 20LJJP00624C) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRITTANY B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Donald A. Buddle, Judge Affirmed.

David M. Yorton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Brittany B. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s denial of her motion requesting a bonding study after reunification services were terminated. We affirm. Under Evidence Code section 730, a court may appoint an expert to study the bond between a parent and a child. (See In re Jennifer J. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1084.) “There is no requirement in statutory or case law that a court must secure a bonding study as a condition precedent to” terminating parental rights. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339.) A juvenile court has broad discretion over whether to order a bonding study. (Id. at pp. 1339-1340.) “The applicable standard of review is whether, under all the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s action, the juvenile court

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.