In re J.D. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Sep 15, 2023 No. B323583Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's order removing the children from the father's custody and that the court did not abuse its discretion in its visitation and parenting class orders.

Issues

Whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's order removing the children from the father's custody.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the father's request for unmonitored overnight and weekend visits.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering the father to participate in parenting classes.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that the minors needed to be removed from his custody until his issues with stress and alcohol had been addressed.”

“the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in denying his blanket request for unmonitored overnight and weekend visits.”

“Father forfeited his challenge to the order that he attend parenting classes by failing to object in the juvenile court”

Filed 9/15/23 In re J.D. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.D. et al., Persons Coming B323583 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01722H-J) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

E.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed. Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over E.D.’s (Father’s) three children: Jan.D., Jo.D., and Jac.D., following an incident in which Father arrived home drunk with a self-inflicted gunshot wound, hit the minors, and threatened to kill them. Though the facts suggest a rather obvious answer, we are asked to decide whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order removing the children from Father’s custody and whether the court abused its discretion when it denied Father overnight and weekend visits and ordered him to participate in parenting classes.

I. BACKGROUND Jan.D. was born in 2006, Jo.D. was born in 2008, and Jac.D. was born in 2009. Father was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the minors in 2019 after the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition alleging they were at risk based on V.M.’s (Mother’s) conduct.1 The events that led to the dependency orders challenged in this appeal occurred in June 2022, when the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) was notified of a disturbance at the family home. The

In re J.D. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.

AI Brief