In re A.M. CA2/8

Filed 1/2/24 In re A.M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.M., a Person Coming B327822 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06510A DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tiana J. Murillo, Judge. Affirmed. Pamela Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ A father appeals the termination of parental rights over his daughter, A.M. He argues notice of the hearing was insufficient. He forfeited this argument because his counsel did not raise it in the juvenile court. We affirm. A.M. was born in spring 2019. She lived with her mother. The father was in prison for injuring the mother. When A.M. was four months old, the juvenile court ordered her to be removed from the mother. A.M. was placed with a non-related extended family member. She has remained in this placement throughout the case. The father had not met A.M. before he entered custody. He was released after the case began. He had five virtual visits with A.M. in early 2021. In April 2021, the court terminated reunification services for the parents. The Department sent the father notices for permanency planning hearings that were scheduled for November 2021 and February 2022. The notices said the Department recommended termination of parental rights. The court continued the permanency planning hearing several times. In September 2022, the Department sent a notice for a review hearing with a recommendation of “Continued Adoptive Planning (Parental Rights Not Terminated).” The court held a hearing on September 22, 2022. It ordered the parties to submit