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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B331424

 (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.
2

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. 
3

Father believed the Department was “unlawfully keeping his son 

from him” and, therefore, refused to share information with the 

Department. Son remained in mother’s care throughout the 

remainder of the proceedings. Son consistently indicated he did 

not want visits with father, and his visits with father remained 

suspended.

By April 2023, the Department recommended terminating 

jurisdiction with a family court order granting mother sole 

physical and legal custody of son. Father’s attorney indicated 

father wanted joint legal and joint physical custody of son.

In early June 2023, it was reported father had been 

arrested and had been in possession of a firearm despite earlier 

declaring he had relinquished all his firearms. This revelation 

prompted mother to request a restraining order protecting her 

from father, which request the court granted. On June 8, 2023, 

father retained private counsel to represent him in the 

proceedings going forward.

A pretrial conference was held June 28, 2023. The 

Department’s recommendation was that the court terminate 

jurisdiction, grant mother sole legal and sole physical custody of 

son, and continue its no-visitation order as to father. Counsel for 

son joined in the Department’s position. Father’s new attorney 

wanted the court either to allow for visitation with father or 

grant father joint custody.

On June 30, 2023, the court held a contested review 

hearing. During a recess in the proceedings, father’s new 

attorney reached an agreement with mother’s counsel. In 

announcing that an agreement had been reached, the juvenile 

court stated the parties had agreed to “a three-year restraining 

order . . . just covering mother” and “the parents would stipulate 
4

to the Department’s proposed JCO [(juvenile custody order)] 

which would have sole legal sole physical with mother.” The 

court noted the only outstanding issue was whether father should 

be allowed monitored visits with son. There were no objections to 

the court’s announcement, or description, of the parties’ 

agreement.

After hearing argument on the visitation issue, the juvenile 

court made its final order. The court adopted the Department’s 

recommendation, noting “father has stipulated to what the JCO 

would look like.” The court concluded it would not change the 

existing visitation order, which was no visits between father and 

son. Nonetheless, the court believed father should be given the 

opportunity to repair his relationship with son and, if possible at 

some point in the future, demonstrate to the family law court any 

progress in addressing his anger management issues.

The juvenile court found continued supervision of son was 

no longer necessary and terminated its jurisdiction. The court 

stayed its order pending receipt of a juvenile custody order 

granting mother sole legal and sole physical custody of son. The 

court also ordered the juvenile custody order to provide father 

“with monitored visits in a therapeutic setting upon father’s 

completion/demonstrated progress in services and confirmation of 

services made by the family law court.” The court set a hearing 

date for its receipt of the contemplated juvenile custody order and 

explained counsel was not required to appear at that hearing 

unless counsel had “an objection to the language” of the juvenile 

custody order.

On July 5, 2023, the juvenile court received the juvenile

custody order, which reflected the court’s June 30, 2023 orders, 

including sole legal and physical custody of son to mother. No 
5

appearances were made that day. The court filed the custody 

order, released son to mother, and terminated jurisdiction.

A few weeks later, on July 25, 2023, father filed a notice of 

appeal, stating he was appealing “[f]indings and orders made up 

to and including findings and orders on June 30, 2023.” Father’s 

notice of appeal did not mention the July 5, 2023, custody order.

DISCUSSION

1. Notice of Appeal

As an initial matter, we address the sufficiency of father’s 

notice of appeal. As father recognizes, his notice of appeal does 

not include the July 5, 2023 juvenile custody order, which father 

challenges on appeal. Nonetheless, father argues it is reasonable 

to infer father meant to appeal the contents of the custody order 

and urges us to consider his challenge on appeal. The 

Department counters father did not appeal the July 5 order and, 

therefore, his appeal of the earlier June 30 order is moot. We 

conclude father’s notice of appeal, although far from perfect,

encompasses the challenged custody order.

“The notice of appeal must be liberally construed, and is 

sufficient if it identifies the particular judgment or order being 

appealed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.405(a)(3).) Here, as noted 

above, father appealed “[f]indings and orders made up to and 

including findings and orders on June 30, 2023.” Clearly, father 

appealed the juvenile court’s June 30, 2023 order, in which the 

court stated, “Jurisdiction is terminated but stayed pending 

receipt of a juvenile custody order granting sole legal and sole 

physical custody to the mother.” The final juvenile custody order, 

filed a few days later on July 5, 2023, was the formalization and 

finalization of the court’s June 30 orders and included the specific 

custody order father now challenges on appeal (i.e., sole legal 
6

custody to mother). Construing father’s notice of appeal liberally,

as we must, we conclude it encompasses the challenge father now 

makes on appeal.

2. Forfeiture

Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when 

it granted mother sole legal custody of son.1 In response, the

Department claims father waived this issue because he 

stipulated to the juvenile court’s order granting sole legal custody 

to mother. Father did not file a reply brief on appeal and, 

therefore, did not respond to the Department’s position. We 

agree with the Department and conclude father forfeited his

challenge to the custody order.

“In dependency litigation, nonjurisdictional issues must be 

the subject of objection or appropriate motions in the juvenile 

court; otherwise those arguments have been waived and may not 

be raised for the first time on appeal.” (In re Christopher B.

(1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 558.) Although as noted above, father

initially sought joint legal and joint physical custody of son, after 

father retained new counsel, his position changed. At first

father’s new attorney also indicated father sought joint custody. 

Later, however, his new attorney reached an agreement with 

mother’s attorney, which included stipulating to the 

Department’s proposed custody order of sole legal and sole 

physical custody to mother. When the juvenile court announced 

and described the stipulated custody arrangement, neither father 

nor his attorney objected. The court also told father’s attorney 

she was not required to appear for the final July 5, 2023 hearing

(when the court would receive and enter the juvenile custody 

1 Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s physical 

custody order.
7

order), unless she had any objection to the custody order. Neither 

father nor his attorney appeared at the July 5 hearing.

On the record before us, it is clear father stipulated to the 

order he now challenges on appeal—namely, sole legal custody of 

son to mother. In his opening brief on appeal, father refers only 

to the portion of the record below where he sought joint legal 

custody of son. He does not mention his later stipulation to the 

court’s eventual final custody order granting mother sole legal 

custody. Accordingly, we conclude father has forfeited the 

argument he makes on appeal. (In re Christopher B., supra, 43 

Cal.App.4th at p. 558; In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 

580, 590.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s July 5, 2023 order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

CHAVEZ, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.