In re Christan R. CA2/8

Filed 10/23/23 In re Christan R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re Christan R. et al., Persons B317943 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County Superior ______________________________ Court No. 21CCJP01020 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ A mother claims insufficient evidence supports the decision removing her two sons from her custody. She asks us to reverse this order and to vacate the resulting custody orders. We affirm. Statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. The family has a lengthy history with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. The current case began in March 2021, when the boys were eight and nine. The case changed character after the juvenile court declared the children dependents in June 2021. The Department filed its subsequent petition in November 2021, and the children were detained from the mother and released to the father then. We focus on this latter part of the case. We review dispositional orders for substantial evidence. We indulge reasonable inferences and resolve conflicts in favor of the findings, examine the record in the light favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations, and refrain from credibility determinations. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633; In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154 (V.L.).) Because these orders require clear and convincing evidence at the juvenile court, we ask whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. (V.L., supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at pp. 149, 154– 155.) Substantial evidence justified removal of these children under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). A reasonable trier of fact could have found it highly probable the children faced a