In re A.C. CA2/5

Filed 12/27/23 In re A.C. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.C., a Person Coming B321960 c/w B326226 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 22CCJP00122B) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.H.,

Defendant and Appellant;

A.C.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle D. Pena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

INTRODUCTION Father appeals from the juvenile court’s order removing daughter (A.C.) from his custody and the court’s exit order granting him monitored visitation. Respondents Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and mother contend that father does not have standing to appeal the custody order. Mother also argues that father’s appeal is moot. Finally, mother contends the juvenile court’s exit order was within its discretion.1 We conclude the appeal is not moot. As to father’s standing we will assume, but not decide, that he may pursue the appeal, but we hold that father suffered no prejudice from the custody order. We also hold that the visitation order was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm both orders.

1 The Department takes no position on the propriety of the exit order.

2

DISCUSSION2 On January 10, 2022, the Department filed a section 300 petition asking the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over A.C. based on allegations that mental problems and aggressive behavior of A.C.’s half-brother limited mother’s ability to care for A.C. and her two other half siblings.3 On May 19, 2022, the juvenile court sustained an amended petition. At the June 30, 2022, dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered A.C., then 12 years old, “removed” from father’s custody. On January 4, 2023, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over A.C. and issued an exit order with sole legal and physical custody to mother and monitored visits to father. Father appeals both orders. 1. Removal Order Father contends the June 30, 2022, removal order was unnecessary and not supported by substantial evidence. A. Standing and Mootness As a threshold matter, the Department and mother urge that father lacks standing to appeal the removal order because (1) he did not have custody at the time of the order and (2) he is merely the biological, not the presumed, father and, therefore, not entitled to custody. We will assume for the purposes of