In re D.B. CA2/8

Filed 6/4/24 In re D.B. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.B. et al., B333354 Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super Ct. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN No. 19CCJP01702A–C) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Anna Rea, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

We address E.B.’s (Father) appeal from the trial court order terminating his parental rights. The trial court found Father to be the presumed father of D.B., B.B., and A.B. D.B. is now 11 years old, B.B. is 7 years old, and A.B. is 5 years old. The trial court asserted jurisdiction because it found Father committed domestic violence against the children’s mother (Mother) and Mother failed to protect the children. At the dispositional hearing, the trial court placed the children with Mother and removed the children from Father. The trial court ordered enhancement services for Father including a domestic violence program, individual counseling, and on-demand drug testing. The juvenile court also ordered monitored visits for Father. Thereafter, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 342,1 and asked the trial court to remove the children from Mother. The trial court sustained the petition and removed the children from Mother’s custody. Father appeared at the section 342 hearing, and the trial court converted his enhancement services to reunification services. By the time of the six-month review hearing, Father was incarcerated. He did not appear at the hearing but was represented by counsel. The trial court extended reunification services for both parents, and the children remained placed outside of both parents’ care.