Filed 11/5/14 In re Michael O. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re MICHAEL O.,
a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B253173 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK98374)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
SHEILA H.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County, Anabelle G. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appoint ment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Da wyn R. Harrison, Acting Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Mother Sheila H. appeals from the juve nile court’s orders under Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 362.4 1 terminating jurisdiction over her sons, Michael O. (Michael) and Anthony R. (A nthony), and granting her m onitored visitation. She contends: (1) the court erre d by terminating jurisdiction rather than preserving it to ensure that Michael’s father, Anthony O. (A.O., not a party to this appeal), complied with the visitation order; (2) the court should have held A.O. in contempt for not cooperating with prio r ordered visitation; and (3) the court abused its discretion in requiring mother’s visits w ith Michael and Anthony to be monitored.
We affirm the orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2013, mother was arrested at home for driving a stolen vehicle. Because her three children were present -- Anthony (12 years old), Michael (6 years old) and Steven H. (2 years old) – th ey were transported to an office of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Se rvices (DCFS). There, Anthony and Michael told the social work er, among other things, that mother and her live-in boyfriend, Kevin P., would stri ke them with a belt on their legs and buttocks and slap Steven on his hands. DCFS filed a section 300 petition against
mother and Kevin P. as to all three child ren alleging physical a buse. On March 19, 2013, the juvenile court found a prima faci e case that th e children were described by section 300. The court released Michae l to the custody of his father, A.O. A family law order entered January 3, 2012, gave him joint legal custody of Michael. The court ordered family ma intenance services for mo ther as to Michael and

1 All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 granted her monitored visitation. Ant hony R. was released to his father, and
Steven was detained in foster care. Re-interviewed by DCFS in May 2013, Anthony and Michael amplified on their alleged physical abuse by mother and Kevin P. In her interview with DCFS,
Mother admitted some of the alleged abuse (putting ch ili in Anthony’s eyes and mouth because he was cursing and striking hi m with a belt) and denied the rest. As part of an earlier family preservation case that was active when the instant section 300 case began, mother was required to alc ohol and drug test. In the instant case, she admitted to DCFS that she had pr eviously abused methamphetamine and alcohol, but stated that she had been clea n for six-and-a-half years, though she still consumed alcohol occasionally. Mother enrolled in anger ma nagement counseling on June 3, 2013. However, following an incident on June 19, 2013, in which
mother threatened to have someone “f . . . up” A.O., he obtained a temporary restraining order against mother. Mother tested negative for drugs on June 18 and August 7, 2013. She tested positive for opiates and hydrocodone on July 8 and July 30, 2013, but produced medication and a letter from her physicia n’s office stating that the medication would cause a positive test for those subs tances. As of August 30, 2013, Mother
had visited Michael three times. Howe ver, she and A.O. did not get along, and
A.O. refused to monitor mother’s visits. On August 30, 2013, the court sust ained the section 300 petition alleging physical abuse under subdivisions (a)(1), (b )(1), and (j)(1). In September 2013,
mother told DCFS that she was able to regularly visi t Anthony and Steven, but had difficulty arranging visitation for Mich ael through A.O. because he would not
allow visits. A.O. claimed that mother texted him for a September visit, but did not follow through with him regarding a monitor. The social worker proposed a4 visitation schedule to A.O., but he neve r responded and appear ed uncooperative. Meanwhile, mother tested negative for drugs once in August, and twice in September. She attended 10 sessions of her anger management program, but had
five unexcused absences. DCFS r ecommended that mother be granted
unmonitored visitation with Michael a nd Anthony, and that jurisdiction be terminated. On October 11, 2013, pendi ng the disposition hearing, the court
ordered unmonitored visitation with Ant hony, and monitored visits with Michael
and Steven. Subsequently in October 2013, DCFS le arned that Mother was terminated from her anger management program beca use of absences and noncompliance.
She later reenrolled in November 2013 and needed 9 group sessions to complete the program. In the meantime, she failed to appear for a random drug and alcohol test on October 15, tested negative on Oct ober 29, and failed to appear again for testing on November 4. As of November 10, 2013, mother had been unable to visit Michael since the October 11, 2013 proceeding. The soci al worker called A.O. four times on different days to attempt to arrange visits, but A.O . did not call back. DCFS reported that A.O. had not cooperated in providing visitation, and recommended
that the court admonish him and order him to comply with a schedule of visitation. The disposition hearing was held on November 25, 2013. At the hearing,
mother testified that she had been term inated from her ange r management class
because she could not afford to attend each class. She had been unsuccessful in obtaining visitation with Michael, and want ed the case to remain open to ensure that A.O. would comply with her right to visitation.
Counsel for DCFS asked the court to terminate jurisdiction as to Michael, with a custody order granting A.O. phys ical custody and mother unmonitored5 visitation, on condition that she participat e in her programs and not miss or have any negative drug tests. DCFS took the same position as to Anthony. The disposition hearing for Steven was continued to a nother date. Counsel for Michael and Anthony asked that jurisdiction be terminated, and
that mother have monitored visitation. She noted that since the case was opened in March 2013, mother had made little prog ress and continued to be out of compliance with her family preservation serv ices. She argued: “I . . . don’t think it is fair to punish . . . Michael by k eeping the case opened simply because it appears . . . the soci al worker is unhappy with the fa ther [and] maybe [he is] not cooperating with her. I think it is in my clie nt’s best interest to close the case [and]
for mother’s visits . . . to be monitored.”
A.O.’s counsel asked for monitored vi sitation, and stated that A.O. “has generally suggested Saturday and Sunday, from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. for visits with mother. . . . This is a very detailed vi sitation suggestion which will ensure mother does get visits. We are asking that before mother[’s] visits ar e not supervised, she complete individual counseling to addre ss anger management.” A.O.’s counsel also noted: “At this point, the purpose of dependency is to ensure the safety of
these children. The child Mi chael is safe in the care of his father. Any issues regarding visits [and] custody are bett er served by the family law court.” Mother’s counsel argued that the fa mily law proceeding was inadequate to ensure mother’s visitation given A.O.’ s history of not cooperating and that Michael’s case needed to remain open to en sure mother’s visitation. She excused mother’s failure to complete her counse ling based on mother’s testimony that she could not afford it, and argued for unmonitored visitation. The court terminated jurisdiction over Michael and Anthony. As to Michael,
the court ordered that mother and A.O. share joint legal custody, and that A.O.6 have sole physical custody. Agreeing w ith the comments of minors’ counsel, the
court ordered monitored visitation for mo ther with a minimu m of two to three visits per week, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. The court noted the proposed schedule of Saturday and Sunday visits, a nd stated that if that schedule did not work, the schedule would be as otherwis e agreed by the parties. The court admonished A.O. as follows: “Mr. [O.], th e mother has a right to visit the child, and you need to cooperate with the court’s order. This is going to be the court order . . . [t]hat is dictating the visitatio n for [mother]. You ne ed to make sure you are complying with the right to visit Mich ael. And if not . . . on Saturday and Sunday, as otherwise agreed by the parties. But the father is to ensure there is a
monitor available to serve as the monitor. ” The court ordered mother to complete anger management counselin g. During the proceeding, mother interrupted the
court to declare that the visitation order was “impossible,” and she ultimately left the courtroom before proceed ings were completed. As to Anthony, the court ordered physical custody to father, and joint legal custody, with monitored visitation for mother.

DISCUSSION
I. Termination of Jurisdiction Mother contends that the juvenile cour t erred in terminating jurisdiction over
Michael. 2 She argues that in doing so, the c ourt “abdicated its duty to ensure” mother had visitation. We disagree. As here relevant, section 362.4 “s tates that, when the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a minor depe ndent child, and . . . a custody order has

2 She does not challenge the terminati on of jurisdiction over Anthony.7 been entered with respect to the child, ‘t he juvenile court on its own motion, may issue . . . an order determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.’ An order entered pursuant to section 362.4 is co mmonly referred to as an ‘exit order.’ [Citation.] The exit order is filed in a ny pending superior court action in which the custody of the child is at issue and if no such action is pending, the exit order can be used to open a file in the superior cour t of the county of residence of the parent who has been given custody of the child. (§ 362.4.) That order ‘shall continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent order of the superior court.’ ( Ibid .)” ( In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 269; see In re Chantal S . (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203.) We review the j uvenile court’s decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and to issue an ex it order pursuant to section 362.4 for abuse of discretion. ( Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300-301.) Here, the record amply supports the c ourt’s decision to terminate jurisdiction over Michael. Michael was residing with A.O., who is a non-offending parent. While in A.O.’s custody, he was no longer in danger of the physical abuse by mother and her boyfriend wh ich had led to dependency jurisdiction in the first place. Given that continued supervisio n of Michael as a dependent child under section 300 was no longer necessary to ensu re his protection, there was no reason to prolong such jurisdiction simply to en force parental visitation. Although when visitation is part of a reunification plan in an active dependency case the court must take continuing steps to ensure that such visitation occurs (see In re S.H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 310, 313), that principle does not apply to an exit order under section 362.4, which contemplates enforc ement of visitation through the family court. (See In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 328. ) True, in ordering visitation the court cannot delegate the decision over the right and extent of8 visitation to nonjudicial officers or third pa rties. But here, th e court set the terms of visitation by mother -- two to three visits per week, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., with father obligated to provide a monitor. (See In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124 [exit order for visita tion must at least set the amount of visitation to which parent is entitled].) The court noted the proposed schedule of Saturday and Sunday visits, and stated that if that schedule did not work, the schedule would be as otherwise agreed by th e parties. The order of visitation is specific, and, contrary to mother’s cont ention, does not permit father to refuse visitation. He must permit mother to vi sit two to three time s a week from 12:00 to 2:00. (Cf. Id. at p. 1124 [by ordering that visitation was to occur only by agreement of the parents without specifi cation of amount of visitation, court improperly gave custodial parent the power to determine whether visitation occurred at all].) Given this specificity and the absence of any need for continuing supervision of Michael, it was reasonable fo r the court to conclude that if A.O. persisted in his resistance to visitati on, family court was the proper venue for
mother to seek enforcement. To the extent mother argues that th e court failed to adequately admonish A.O. to obey the visitation order, we find no abuse of discretion. The court told A.O. that mother had the right to visitatio n and that he needed to cooperate with
the court’s order. No more was required. In any even t, even if no admonition had been given at all, that would not be a reason to overturn the decision to terminate jurisdiction. As best we understand, mother suggests that before terminating jurisdiction, the court should have used its contempt power against A.O. to enforce its visitation
order. Mother did not raise the issue in the juvenile court, and it is therefore forfeited. Regardless, as we have alrea dy concluded, the court did not abuse its9 discretion in terminating jurisdiction a nd leaving any proceeding for enforcement to the family court.

II. Visitation
Mother contends that the court erre d in ordering monitored visitation for Anthony and Michael. 3 We disagree. “[T]here are situations in which a juvenile court may reasonably determine that continued supervision of the minor as a dependent child is not necessary for the child’s protection, and at the same ti me conclude that conditions on visitation are necessary to minimize, if not eliminate, the danger that visits might subject the minor to the same risk of physical abuse or emotional harm that previously led to the dependency adjudication. In such a situation, sections 362.4 and 362(c) authorize the juvenile court to issue an appropriate protective order conditioning custody or visitation on a parent’s partic ipation in a counseling program.” ( In re
Chantal S
., supra , 13 Cal.4th at p. 204.) Here, the record showed that moth er had anger management problems. Section 300 jurisdiction was based on mothe r’s participation in physical abuse of Michael and Anthony. Also, during the pe ndency of the case, she had threatened A.O., after which he obtained a temporary re straining order agai nst her. Although she had enrolled in anger management counseling, she had not completed the program. Also, her drug te sting was inconsistent. Given these facts, the court could reasonably conclude that at least until mother completed anger management

3 Although mother argues that the court erred in orderi ng monitored visitation for Steven, no such order was made, because th e disposition hearing for him was continued to another date after the hearing for Anthony and Michael and is not pa rt of the record on appeal. Because DCFS recommended unmonitored visitation, it takes no position on this issue.10 counseling, monitored vis itation was appropriate to prevent any recurrence of potentially violent behavior between mother and A.O., and to prevent the recurrence of mother’s physical abuse of Michael and Anthony. Upon completing anger management, mother can seek modi fication of the visitation order in the family court. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s reasoning.

DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MANELLA, J.

EDMON, J.*

*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Cour t, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.