In re T.P. CA2/4

Filed 12/1/23 In re T.P. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re T.P. et al., Persons B322047 consolidated with Coming Under the Juvenile B324972 Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. CK38987, CK38987H, CK38987I) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Tiffany P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.

Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Minors.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This appeal arises from a dependency case that has been active since 2012. Tiffany P. (mother) appeals two juvenile court orders suspending all contact with the two youngest of her nine children, Te. and Ta. The two children, represented by counsel, are respondents in this appeal and ask that we affirm the juvenile court’s orders. We find no error and affirm. An extensive case background is discussed in In re T.P. (Feb. 6, 2020, B297465) (nonpub. opn.) and In re T.P. (Mar. 30, 2023, B313540) (nonpub opn.). As stated in those opinions, mother’s reunification services were terminated in 2014, but she continued to have monitored visitation with Te. and Ta. During the period relevant to this appeal, late 2021 into 2022, Te. was age 12-13 and Ta. was age 11-12. The juvenile court suspended all contact between mother and the children at a Welfare and Institutions Code, section

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.