In re Ja.P. CA2/5

Filed 10/11/23 In re Ja.P. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Ja.P. et al., Persons B321468 (consolidated with Coming Under the Juvenile B321471) Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP02855A–B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Peter R. Navarro, Judge Pro Tempore. Dismissed. Darlene A. Kelly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

M.A (mother) appeals from an exit order that granted J.P. (father) unmonitored visitation with the children, Ja.P. (born in 2008) and Jac.P. (born in 2011), arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion in issuing the order. The right to appeal from such an order, however, is generally limited to parties aggrieved by it. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 902; In re Crystal J. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 186, 189–190; In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 734 [“To be aggrieved, a party must have a legally cognizable immediate and substantial interest which is injuriously affected by the court’s decision. A nominal interest or remote consequence of the ruling does not satisfy this requirement”].)1 We conclude that because mother is not