In re R.M. CA2/2

Filed 6/21/24 In re R.M. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re R.M., a Person Coming B331424 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP02844A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse Frederic Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________________

In this juvenile dependency appeal, Richard M. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s final custody order, which granted L.C. (mother) sole legal custody of their son, R.M. (son). Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in not ordering joint legal custody of son. Because father agreed to the juvenile court’s custody order below, he cannot now challenge it on appeal. Accordingly, father forfeited this argument, and we affirm. BACKGROUND 1. First Appeal This is father’s second appeal from the underlying proceedings. In his first appeal, we held the appeal was moot and, in any event, his arguments as to dependency jurisdiction had no merit. (In re R.M., Jr. (Oct. 27, 2023, B325383 [nonpub opn.]) (first appeal).) Rather than repeat the facts of this case up to the point of father’s first appeal, we incorporate by reference our opinion in B325383. 2. Events Since First Appeal Because father stipulated to the custody order at issue, we provide only a brief summary of the facts and procedural history of the case since father’s first appeal. Throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) struggled to obtain information from father regarding progress with his case plan.