Filed 3/30/22 In re Julian S. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re JULIAN S. et al., Persons 

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B311604

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP05404A-B

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Annabelle G. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.

Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction with an order 

granting a father sole physical custody and granting joint legal 

custody. The mother appeals. The court did not abuse its 

discretion by terminating jurisdiction rather than ordering 

reunification services. The child was safe with the father. The 

court had broad discretion to make custody orders in the child’s 

best interests. Its order granting joint legal custody was 

appropriate. We affirm. Citations to statutes are to the Welfare 

and Institutions Code. 

I

The mother has two children with Angel M.: Julian S. 

(born in September 2013 and presently eight years old) and 

Lucas M. (born in April 2020). Although the mother named both 

children in the notice of appeal and in her appellate briefs, her 

appeal focuses only on the court’s termination of jurisdiction over 

Julian and custody orders involving Julian. 

When Julian was born, the mother was in a relationship 

with James S., who cared for Julian and raised him as a son. 

Julian calls James “Dad” and his “real father.” The court found 

James to be Julian’s presumed father. Accordingly, we refer to 

James as the “father,” despite the fact Angel M. is Julian’s 

biological father. 

Before the juvenile court proceedings, the mother and 

father participated in family law proceedings involving Julian. 

In December 2019, a family law court gave the mother primary 

physical custody of Julian. It granted the father unmonitored 
3

visitation on one weekday and every other weekend. In 

September 2020, the mother said she and the father were 

finalizing an agreement to share custody of Julian equally.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services became involved due to violence between Angel 

M. and the mother, who both pleaded no contest to a section 300, 

subdivision (b) allegation that they endangered the children. The 

uncontested allegation said Angel M. and the mother had 

physical altercations when Julian and Lucas were home. On 

September 19, 2020, Angel M. struck the mother’s face, grabbed 

her neck, and pushed her head against a car window. During 

that incident, Angel M. broke the mother’s nose and the mother 

lost consciousness. Angel M. and the mother had other physical 

altercations. The mother failed to protect the children by 

allowing Angel M. to live in the home and to have unlimited 

access to the children. Angel M.’s and the mother’s conduct put 

the children at risk of serious physical harm.

Although they eventually pleaded no contest, on earlier 

occasions Angel M. and the mother gave different accounts. 

Angel M. claimed there was “nothing physical” and the mother 

said the September 2020 incident was the only time Angel M. had 

been violent.

Julian reported he sometimes heard Angel M. and the 

mother fight and yell. The fighting made Julian nervous and his 

body would shake. 

Julian felt comfortable and safe with the father. The 

Department assessed the father’s home, which was clean and 

safe. A friend of the mother described the father as a great dad 

who had bonded with Julian.
4

On October 14, 2020, the court removed the children, 

detained them from Angel M., and released Julian to the mother 

and father. The court ordered monitored visitation for Angel M. 

and prohibited the mother from being the monitor. The court 

also issued a temporary restraining order to protect the mother 

from Angel M. 

Julian alternated between living one week with the mother 

and one week with the father. 

The mother and Angel M. violated the court’s orders. As of 

December 2020, Angel M. was living with the mother again. The 

same month, the mother took the children on a trip with Angel 

M. and told Julian to lie to the father about it. When the father 

learned about the living arrangement and the trip, he notified the 

Department. 

On January 13, 2021, at the Department’s request, the 

court detained the children from the mother and ordered 

monitored visitation. The court released Julian to the father. 

On February 2, 2021, Angel M. and the mother pleaded no 

contest to the section 300 allegation we previously recounted, and 

the court sustained the petition. The mother allowed the 

temporary restraining order against Angel M. to lapse. She did 

not want a permanent restraining order. 

After the court removed Julian from the mother, she had 

one 9-hour visit with him. She said she only had one monitor, 

whose schedule conflicted with the times she wanted to visit. 

On March 22, 2021, the court removed Julian from the 

mother’s custody. The court explained its decision: the 

September 2020 incident was serious and violent, the violence 

between Angel M. and the mother was not isolated, the mother 
5

minimized this violence, and she gave Angel M. access to the 

children. 

The Department recommended the court terminate 

jurisdiction over Julian with a custody order giving the father 

sole physical custody and joint legal custody with the mother. 

Julian’s trial attorney said Julian wanted the court to know he 

was “fine” with the Department’s recommendation. 

The mother objected to removal. In the alternative, she 

asked the court to maintain jurisdiction over Julian’s case. She 

argued she had been the custodial parent before the case began, 

she made progress on case issues, she began participating in a 

domestic violence program, and she hoped to reunify with both 

her sons. She wanted to coparent with the father. 

The court followed the Department’s recommendation. It 

granted the father sole physical custody of Julian, granted the 

mother and father joint legal custody, and terminated jurisdiction 

over Julian. The court explained the father was not the reason 

for the Department’s involvement, he followed up appropriately, 

and Julian was safe in his care. Because the mother previously 

had custody of Julian, the court granted joint legal custody rather 

than sole legal custody to the father.

The court ordered monitored visits for the mother and 

ordered the mother and father to mediate a visitation plan. The 

court stayed its termination of jurisdiction pending the 

mediation. 

The mother and father created a detailed visitation plan. 

The plan identifies several approved monitors: the father, four 

other family members, and other adults with the mother’s and 

father’s consent. The plan allows the mother to visit Julian 

weekly on two weekdays for three hours each, every other Friday 
6

for seven hours, two weekends a month for 18 hours per weekend, 

and half of all holidays. The mother may call Julian any night 

during a specified hour, as well.

On May 12, 2021, the court signed a final custody order and 

judgment memorializing its earlier orders and the mediated 

visitation plan. This final judgment is in our record. On August 

18, 2021, the mother requested we take judicial notice of a May 

12, 2021 minute order terminating jurisdiction over Julian. We 

grant this uncontested request.

On December 30, 2021, the mother requested we take 

judicial notice of a September 27, 2021 order from the juvenile 

court. We grant this uncontested request. The juvenile court 

found the mother and Angel M. had made substantial progress 

and returning Lucas to their care would not raise a substantial 

risk to his well-being. The court maintained jurisdiction over 

Lucas. It ordered the mother and Angel M. not to live together 

until they begin counseling and the Department conducts an 

assessment. 

II

The court did not abuse its discretion by terminating 

jurisdiction over Julian and it had discretion to grant joint legal 

custody. 

We generally review an order terminating jurisdiction for 

an abuse of discretion. (In re A.J. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 525, 

535, fn. 7 (A.J.).) The question is whether juvenile court services 

and ongoing supervision were necessary to protect the child from 

harm. (In re D.B. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 613, 624 (D.B.).) If the 

child was safe, then services and supervision were unnecessary 

and the court could close the case. (Ibid.) We review the court’s 

factual finding that Julian was safe with the father for 

substantial evidence. (See A.J., at p. 535, fn. 7.) 
7

The court has broad discretion to fashion disposition orders 

for the child’s well-being. (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 

532.) We review the legal question of whether section 361.2 

allows the court to grant joint legal custody independently. (See

A.J., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 535, fn. 7.) 

The court did not abuse its discretion by terminating 

jurisdiction. When the juvenile court removes a child from a 

custodial parent at disposition, it must determine whether a 

noncustodial parent seeks custody of the child. (§ 361.2, subd. 

(a).) If the court places a child with a noncustodial parent, it may 

issue an order granting custody to that parent and terminate 

jurisdiction over the child. (Id., subd. (b)(1).) The court 

appropriately selected this option. 

Substantial evidence proves juvenile court services and 

ongoing supervision were not necessary to protect Julian from 

harm. (See D.B., supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 624.) The safety 

concern was Angel M.’s violence and the mother’s willingness to 

give Angel M. access to Julian. The court resolved this concern 

by granting the father physical custody. Julian approved of 

living with the father, with whom he felt safe and comfortable. 

The Department found the father’s home clean and safe. When 

the court was deciding whether to terminate jurisdiction, the 

mother did not raise concerns about Julian’s safety with the 

father. Instead, she expressed a desire to coparent with him and,

about six months earlier, said she would agree to equal custody. 

The evidence of Julian’s safety with the father was substantial. 

The mother’s arguments against termination of jurisdiction 

fail. She had started making progress and participating in 

classes, but this did not require the court to retain jurisdiction. 

The mother argues it would be in Julian’s best interests and 

would support his emotional health to have regular visitation. 

The visitation plan provides just that. She suggests her issue of 
8

scheduling visits with one monitor in the past means she may not 

have the visits, but she ignores the many potential monitors in 

the current plan. The mother also does not explain how 

maintaining jurisdiction would help her scheduling issues. The 

court did not abuse its discretion by terminating jurisdiction with 

an extensive visitation plan.

The mother says the court should have maintained 

jurisdiction over Julian because it maintained jurisdiction over 

his brother, Lucas. The two children were in different situations. 

Julian is older and the father had played a caretaking role in his 

life over a long period of time but had never acted as Lucas’s 

father. The court acted within its discretion by placing Julian 

safely with his father. 

The court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered joint 

legal custody. Section 361.2, subdivision (b)(1) allows the court to 

grant legal and physical custody to a previously noncustodial 

parent, but it does not say custody must be sole custody. We 

interpret this section to allow the court to grant joint legal 

custody if the court finds this outcome is in the child’s best 

interest. The court acknowledged the mother’s previous custodial 

relationship with Julian and found the relationship weighed in 

favor of joint legal custody. This decision was logical, reasonable, 

and it gave the mother more rights than if the court had granted 

the father sole legal custody. The court’s decision was within its 

authority and the court did not abuse its discretion. 
9

DISPOSITION

We affirm. 

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

STRATTON, Acting P. J. 

HARUTUNIAN, J.*

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.