In re A.M. CA2/1

Filed 10/2/23 In re A.M. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.M., A Person Coming Under B325289 the Juvenile Court Law. _________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP00170) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Linda L. Sun, Judge. Affirmed. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

A.L. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s findings and orders at two Welfare and Institutions Code section 3641 hearings, the second of which culminated in an “exit order”2 awarding sole legal and physical custody of Father’s daughter, A.M., to her mother. Father contends that we must reverse the exit order, as well as the court’s related findings, because (1) the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to provide him with adequate notice of the section 364 hearings, (2) the court failed to enforce its orders permitting him twice-weekly monitored visitation with A.M., and (3) the court erroneously believed that it lacked discretion to award Father joint legal custody of A.M. We conclude, however, that any notice defects were harmless, Father forfeited his argument concerning visitation, and the record does not show that the court misunderstood the scope of its discretion in making the custody determination. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY3 On January 13, 2022, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of one-year-old A.M. The petition alleged, inter alia, that Father and V.M. (Mother) “[had] a history of engaging in violent altercations” in A.M.’s presence and described an August 28, 2021

1 Unless otherwise specified, further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 The juvenile court has authority to issue custody and visitation orders when it terminates jurisdiction over a minor. (§ 362.4, subd. (a).) Such orders are commonly referred to as “exit orders.” (In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455.) 3 We summarize here only the facts and procedural history relevant to our resolution of this appeal.