Filed 11/22/22 In re K.H. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 FIVE

In re K.H., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.R. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 B315003

 (Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 21CCJP02102A)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Robin Kesler, Juvenile Court Referee. Reversed

and remanded with directions.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant G.R.

Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.H.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

In 2017, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over 

daughter with an order giving mother full custody and father 

monitored visitation. In 2021, the juvenile court sustained a 

section 300, subdivision (b) allegation, finding daughter at risk of 

serious harm based on the parents’ failure to comply with certain 

aspects of the 2017 order. Rather than assume jurisdiction over 

daughter, the court ordered informal supervision pursuant to

Welfare and Institutions Code section 360, subdivision (b).1 The 

parents appeal from this informal supervision order, which 

placed daughter in “home-of-parents.” They argue the juvenile 

court should have issued a modified custody order that conformed 

with its home-of-parents disposition. The Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) does not 

take a position on the appeal.2 We reverse and remand for 

further proceedings addressing the 2017 and 2021 orders. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Dependency History

In 2016, the juvenile court sustained a section 300 petition 

alleging that father had physical altercations with mother and a 

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code, unless indicated otherwise.

Section 360, subdivision (b) states: “If the court finds that 

the child is a person described by Section 300, it may, without 

adjudicating the child a dependent child of the court, order that 

services be provided to keep the family together and place the 

child and the child’s parent or guardian under the supervision of 

the social worker for a time period consistent with Section 301.”

2 DCFS filed a cross-appeal but abandoned it and requested 

dismissal. On June 29, 2022, this court dismissed the crossappeal.
3

paternal aunt in daughter’s presence, and father abused alcohol 

rendering him incapable of providing daughter regular care and 

supervision. The court ordered father to engage in a full drug 

program, drug and alcohol testing, a 12 Step Program, a 

Fatherhood Program, and individual counseling. Father failed to 

reunify with daughter or complete the court-ordered programs. 

On May 23, 2017, the court terminated jurisdiction with a 

custody order giving mother sole physical and legal custody of 

daughter, and ordering monitored visitation for father. The 

mother was not permitted to monitor father’s visits.

2. Present Dependency Case

On March 16, 2021, DCFS received a referral alleging 

domestic violence between the parents and father’s physical 

abuse of daughter. DCFS investigated and determined those 

allegations were unfounded. However, in the course of those 

proceedings, DCFS discovered that, five months earlier, the 

parents had rekindled their relationship and were living together 

with daughter. This state of affairs appeared to have placed 

parents in violation of the then-existing custody order, which

prohibited mother from monitoring father’s visits with daughter.

In addition, father had not addressed his substance abuse, and 

mother tested positive for marijuana.

On May 5, 2021, DCFS filed a non-detained petition 

regarding then-five-year-old daughter based on (1) the parents’ 

violation of the juvenile court’s 2017 custody order that allowed 

father only monitored visitation, and (2) father’s failure to 

complete previous court-ordered programs.

3 

3 DCFS also alleged father’s domestic violence with another 

woman as a basis for jurisdiction, but those counts were 

dismissed.
4

On September 8, 2021, the court sustained a single section 

300, subdivision (b) allegation that mother allowed father to 

reside in daughter’s home and have unlimited and unmonitored 

access to daughter in violation of the prior juvenile court order, 

despite knowing father had never completed the court-ordered 

programs from the 2017 case. 

Instead of assuming jurisdiction over daughter, the juvenile 

court proceeded to disposition pursuant to section 360, 

subdivision (b). The court ordered both parents to complete

random and on demand drug testing, and father to complete the 

2017 case plan under DCFS’s informal supervision. The court 

ordered daughter to be placed in home-of-parents. The parents 

were still living together at this time. Neither the family nor 

DCFS objected to the order. 

DISCUSSION

The parents contend the juvenile court’s 2021 disposition

order is inconsistent with its 2017 custody order. The earlier 

order gave full custody to mother with monitored visitation to

father. The 2021 order, on the other hand, returned daughter to 

the home-of-parents, thus creating uncertainty as to the viability 

of the 2017 order. The parents cite section 302, subdivision (d), 

and assert the juvenile court “should have modified the existing 

custody order to reflect the changed placement order and the 

elimination of father’s monitored visits.”4 

4 Section 302, subdivision (d) states: “Any custody or 

visitation order issued by the juvenile court at the time the 

juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction . . . shall remain in effect 

after that jurisdiction is terminated. The order shall not be 

modified . . . unless the court finds that there has been a 
5

We observe that the 2017 custody order giving mother full 

custody and father monitored visitation appears to be still in 

effect. Yet, it is unclear from the court’s 2021 disposition order 

whether the court intended to modify the custody order by 

placing daughter in the home of both parents with joint legal and 

physical custody or, purported to modify the earlier visitation

order so that father’s visits were unmonitored, or something else.

Based on the apparent conflict in the orders, we must remand for 

further proceedings. 

Father asks us to remand the matter “to the juvenile court

for modification of the custody order in accord with the juvenile 

court’s order placing the child with both parents.” DCFS, 

although taking no position on the merits of the appeal, states if 

this Court is to remand, it should be to the family law court. 

Although remand to a different court “is, to say the least, 

unusual,” it may be done. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 

961, 976.) We choose, however, to remand to the juvenile court so 

that court may determine in the first instance whether it 

intended to modify the custody order, whether it has jurisdiction 

to do so, and whether the matter should be transferred to family 

court as DCFS suggests. (See In re Sarah M. (1991) 

233 Cal.App.3d 1486, 1504, disapproved on other grounds in In re 

Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 204.)

We hold that the current state of the two juvenile court 

orders is unclear and cannot stand. We therefore remand to the 

juvenile court for further proceedings.

significant change of circumstances since the juvenile court 

issued the order and modification of the order is in the best 

interest of the child.”
6

DISPOSITION

The September 8, 2021 order is reversed and remanded to 

the juvenile court to conduct further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. 

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.