In re A.M. CA2/5

Filed 9/12/23 In re A.M. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.M. et al., Persons B320168 Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 22LJJP00086A–D)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERICA M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

Mother Erica M. (mother) challenges on appeal jurisdictional findings that her children, A.M. (born in 2010), J.M. (born in 2011), J.R. (born in 2013), and J.R., Jr. (born in 2015) are dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300. Mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings and the issuance of a three-year restraining order against her. We affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, 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, fn. omitted [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies