In re S.O. CA4/1

Filed 12/20/23 In re S.O. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re S.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D082298 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ15753) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

W.O.,

Defendant and Appellant;

D.O.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Nadia J. Keilani, Judge. Affirmed. Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mother, W.O. Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Father, D.O.

Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Minor, S.O. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In June 2021, the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a juvenile dependency case under Welfare and Institutions

Code2 section 300 on behalf of then five-month-old S.O. (Child) due to domestic violence between his parents. During the dependency proceedings, D.O. (Father) successfully completed reunification services, and W.O. (Mother) moved to Iowa to live with her boyfriend. In May 2023, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction, placed the Child with Father, and awarded Father sole legal and physical custody. In this appeal, Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s termination of jurisdiction or award of physical custody to Father, but contends that the juvenile court erred by declining to order joint legal custody. When the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a dependent child, section 362.4 authorizes it to make custody and visitation (or “exit”) orders. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203.) In issuing an exit order, the juvenile court must consider the best interests of the child. (See, e.g., In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 712.) The family law