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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K HALANNI M

. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law

. B 3 15573

(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 Appellan t

. Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Respondent. Dawyn H. Harrison

, Acting County Counsel, K im Nemoy

, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo

, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

INTRODUCTION

I n this case involving three

- year

- old Khalanni M. , the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and entered an order
under Welfare and Institutions Code s ection 362.4,
subdivision (a), 1 awarding Khalanni’s mother sole legal and physical custody and limiting unmonitored visit s 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 visi ts to two hours a week

. We affirm.

1 Undesignated s tatutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. In Khalil’s Previous Appeal, We Affirm t he 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 i s Cheyanne N., and Khalanni, whose mother i s Arviana B. The Department alleged Khalil Jr. came wi thin the court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisio ns (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 threate ne d to kill Cheyanne and shoot her family members. The Department alleged Khalanni also came within the court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision s (a) an d (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 a t 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 jurisdictio n 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 C ourt Terminates Its Jurisdiction over
Khalanni

, Award s Sole Legal and Physical Custody
to Arviana

, and Limit s Khalil’s Unmonitored Visit s Meanwhile, o n June 7, 2021 the juvenile court held a section 364 review hearing in this case (Khalanni’s)

. In anticipation of terminating its jurisdiction, t he court continued
the hea ring to allow Khalil and Arviana to participate in
mediation regarding custody and visitation

. Over objections by the Department, Arviana, and counsel for Khalanni, t he 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 a n 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, a t 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 include d 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 t o 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 juvenil e 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 denyi ng 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 have6

allowed all Khalil’s visits to be unsupervise d. 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 cou rt terminated its jurisdiction, award ed sole legal and physical custody to Arviana , order ed 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 stay ed 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
hi s 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 orde r, Khalil appealed from the juvenile court’s August 6, 202 1 order denying his “ motion for new evidence.” Because hi s 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.) W e 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, t he record supported the court’s concern Khalil did not cooperate and communicate with Arviana

, as required of parents exercis ing 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 deman d 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

. W hen the court made its custody and visitation order on8

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

—

s ince June 7, 2021 . The record reflects that d uring 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 hea ring

. Not a lot
of time or visits to evaluate whether unmonitored visitation was
in Khalanni’s best interest s

. The Department reported that, at one point in that period, Khalil went 24 days without arranging for any kind of visit with Khalanni and “refus ed 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. W ithout seeing more

— and more regular

— unmonitored visit s by Khalil

, the court reasonably concluded it

was not in Kh a lanni’s best interest s to have all of Khalil’s visits
with Kh a lanni 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.