Filed 1/11/23 In re Khalanni M. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re KHALANNI M., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

 B315573

 

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20LJJP00258A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KHALIL M.,

Defendant and Appellant;

A.B., 

 Defendant and Respondent.
2

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Robin Kesler, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Respondent.

Dawyn H. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

____________________________________

INTRODUCTION

In this case involving three-year-old Khalanni M., the 

juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and entered an order 

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4, 

subdivision (a),1 awarding Khalanni’s mother sole legal and 

physical custody and limiting unmonitored visits between 

Khalanni and her father, Khalil M., to two hours a week. Khalil

appeals from that custody and visitation order, commonly 

referred to as an “exit order” (In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 

503, 513), arguing the court abused its discretion in not awarding 

him joint legal custody and in restricting his unmonitored visits

to two hours a week. We affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. In Khalil’s Previous Appeal, We Affirm the Juvenile 

Court’s Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition Order

Concerning Khalanni

In 2020 the Los Angeles County Department of Children 

and Family Services filed section 300 petitions asserting juvenile 

court jurisdiction over two of Khalil’s children: Khalil M. Jr.,2

whose mother is Cheyanne N., and Khalanni, whose mother is 

Arviana B. The Department alleged Khalil Jr. came within the 

court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1),

because, among other reasons, Khalil had abused Khalil Jr. by 

hitting him in the chest, Khalil and Cheyanne had a history of 

violent physical altercations, and Khalil had threatened to kill 

Cheyanne and shoot her family members. The Department 

alleged Khalanni also came within the court’s jurisdiction under 

section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), because, among other 

reasons, Khalil and Arviana had a history of verbal and physical 

altercations, Khalil had physically abused Khalanni’s half-sibling 

Khalil Jr., and Khalil had a history of violent altercations with 

Cheyanne. (In re Khalil M. Jr. (Sept. 15, 2021, B309621, 

B309622) [nonpub. opn.] (Khalil I).)

In December 2020 the juvenile court consolidated the 

petitions for a jurisdiction hearing at which the court sustained 

both petitions. At disposition the court declared Khalil Jr. and 

Khalanni dependent children of the juvenile court, removed both 

children from Khalil (and Khalil Jr. from Cheyanne), and placed 

Khalanni with Arviana. (Khalil I, supra.)

2 In September 2021, when we decided Khalil’s previous 

appeal, Khalil Jr. was four years old. 
4

Khalil appealed from the jurisdiction findings and 

disposition orders for both children. In September 2021 we

affirmed the jurisdiction findings and disposition order for

Khalanni and affirmed those for Khalil Jr. on the condition the 

juvenile court and the Department redress their failure to comply 

with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child 

Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). (Khalil I, supra.) 

B. The Juvenile Court Terminates Its Jurisdiction over 

Khalanni, Awards Sole Legal and Physical Custody 

to Arviana, and Limits Khalil’s Unmonitored Visits 

Meanwhile, on June 7, 2021 the juvenile court held a 

section 364 review hearing in this case (Khalanni’s). In 

anticipation of terminating its jurisdiction, the court continued

the hearing to allow Khalil and Arviana to participate in 

mediation regarding custody and visitation. Over objections by 

the Department, Arviana, and counsel for Khalanni, the court 

ordered that in the meantime Khalil—who, since at least 

December 2020, had been allowed only monitored visits with 

Khalanni—could have one unmonitored two-hour visit each week, 

provided he maintained satisfactory drug test results.3 The court 

indicated its tentative decision for a custody and visitation order 

was to award joint legal custody to Khalil and Arviana.

After their mediation, Khalil and Arviana entered into an

agreement subject to amendment and final approval by the 

juvenile court. The agreement provided Khalanni would live 

3 In December 2020 the juvenile court ordered two monitored 

two-hour visits each week for Khalil. Later, at some time before

the June 2021 hearing, the Department liberalized this to one 

monitored visit each Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 
5

with Arviana, and it set forth two visitation plans for Khalil. The 

first provided that every Saturday Khalil would have an 

unmonitored visit from noon to 2:00 p.m. and a monitored visit 

from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The second provided that, “[u]pon 

Court approval of all visitation (parenting time) being 

unsupervised,” Khalil would “have parenting time every other 

weekend,” from 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 p.m. Sunday. The 

agreement also included provisions that would apply “[i]f the 

court orders Joint Legal [custody].” 

On July 9, 2021 the juvenile court resumed the section 364 

review hearing. After indicating it had received the mediation 

agreement, the court ordered that Khalil would continue to have

one unmonitored two-hour visit each week and found good cause 

to continue the hearing again, this time to August 6, 2021. 

On August 5, 2021 Khalil filed a motion to dismiss the 

previously sustained “domestic violence allegations” concerning 

him and Arviana because of “new evidence.” The new evidence, 

according to Khalil, was a series of text messages he received 

from Arviana after the juvenile court sustained the allegations. 

He argued the messages showed Arviana “did not tell the 

‘TRUTH’ regarding the domestic violence allegations.” 

On August 6, 2021 the juvenile court resumed the section 

364 hearing. The court began by hearing and denying Khalil’s 

motion. The court also indicated the motion made it “rethink” its 

order allowing Khalil unmonitored visitation, as well as the 

court’s tentative decision for joint legal custody, because the 

motion suggested Khalil did not take responsibility for his prior 

domestic violence. Regarding the mediation agreement, the 

juvenile court ruled Arviana would have sole legal custody of 

Khalanni, and the court struck the provision that would have 
6

allowed all Khalil’s visits to be unsupervised. The court 

expressed its concern about Khalil’s failure to accept 

responsibility for the fact the case was before the court, his 

continuing “attempt for power and control” over Arviana, and his 

“inability to communicate appropriately” with her. The court 

terminated its jurisdiction, awarded sole legal and physical 

custody to Arviana, ordered visitation for Khalil as provided in 

the amended mediation agreement (i.e., two hours of 

unmonitored visitation, followed by four hours of monitored 

visitation, on Saturdays), and stayed the order terminating 

jurisdiction pending receipt of a custody and visitation order. 

The court subsequently received and filed an exit order reflecting 

its rulings on custody and visitation. Khalil timely appealed.4

DISCUSSION

Khalil contends the juvenile court erred in making its 

custody and visitation order. Specifically, he argues the court 

should have awarded joint legal custody of Khalanni, allowed all 

his visits with her be unmonitored, and ordered overnight visits 

as provided in the provision of the mediation agreement the court 

struck. These arguments lack merit. 

In making custody and visitation orders under section 

362.4, a juvenile court must be “guided by the totality of the 

4 In addition to appealing from the custody and visitation

order, Khalil appealed from the juvenile court’s August 6, 2021 

order denying his “motion for new evidence.” Because his briefs 

do not address that order, however, Khalil has abandoned that 

aspect of his appeal. (See In re M.B. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 617, 

620, fn. 1.)
7

circumstances in issuing orders that are in the child’s best 

interests.” (In re C.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 101, 109; see In re 

T.S., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 513-514.) We review a juvenile 

court’s custody and visitation order for abuse of discretion. (In re 

M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.) “An appealed-from 

judgment or order is presumed correct” (In re Sade C. (1996) 

13 Cal.4th 952, 994), and “all legitimate inferences are indulged 

in to uphold the juvenile court’s determinations” (In re K.S. 

(2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 327, 337).

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding 

sole legal custody to Arviana instead of joint legal custody. In 

particular, the record supported the court’s concern Khalil did not 

cooperate and communicate with Arviana, as required of parents 

exercising joint legal custody. (See Fam. Code, § 3003 [“‘Joint 

legal custody’ means that both parents shall share the right and 

the responsibility to make the decisions relating to the health, 

education, and welfare of a child.”].) For example, in a last 

minute information report filed on August 6, 2021, the 

Department stated Arviana said that, when communicating with 

Khalil to arrange visits and other matters, she felt “bullied and 

harassed by” him, did “not want to get into a confrontation with” 

him, and agreed “with his requests so he [would] just leave her 

alone.” The Department also reported that Khalil “is unable to 

set up a visit between himself and mother without a monitor 

involved” and that he “continues to demand things his way, 

which is more of a child mentality than [an] adult mentality.” 

Nor did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in continuing 

to allow Khalil one unmonitored two-hour visit each week, rather 

than ordering all his visits be unmonitored and include overnight 

visits. When the court made its custody and visitation order on 
8

August 6, 2021, the court (over objections by the Department, 

Arviana, and Khalanni) had been allowing Khalil to have 

unmonitored visits with Khalanni—once weekly, for two hours—

since June 7, 2021. The record reflects that during that period of 

over eight weeks Khalil had only three unmonitored two-hour 

visits with Khalanni (for a total of six hours), the last of which 

occurred on July 4, 2021, four weeks before the hearing. Not a lot 

of time or visits to evaluate whether unmonitored visitation was 

in Khalanni’s best interests. The Department reported that, at 

one point in that period, Khalil went 24 days without arranging 

for any kind of visit with Khalanni and “refused to set up an 

unmonitored visit,” even though Arviana made Khalanni 

available. The Department also reported that on August 2, 2021

Khalil hung up on one of its social workers when she contacted 

Khalil and asked for a date he could pick up Khalanni for an 

unmonitored visit. Without seeing more—and more regular—

unmonitored visits by Khalil, the court reasonably concluded it 

was not in Khalanni’s best interests to have all of Khalil’s visits 

with Khalanni be unmonitored or to allow overnight visits. 
9

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s custody and visitation order is 

affirmed. 

SEGAL, J. 

We concur: 

PERLUSS, P. J.

FEUER, J.