Filed 7/24/24 In re Luis N. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 LUIS N., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile

Court Law.

 B332337

 (Los Angeles County Super. 

 Ct. No. 22LJJP00432A)

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SAMMY N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Jennifer W. Baronoff, Judge Pro Tempore. 

Affirmed.
2

Benjamin Ekenes, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

* * * * * *

Sammy N. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating dependency jurisdiction over his son, Luis N., and 

issuing an exit order limiting father to monitored visitation with 

Luis. Father contends that the juvenile court’s requirement in 

the exit order that his visitation be monitored was based, at least 

in part, on father’s failure to complete mental health services 

that the court previously ordered at the dispositional hearing in 

this matter. Because we have affirmed the mental health 

services requirement in the dispositional order in a recently filed

separate opinion (In re Luis N. (June 4, 2024, B326735) [nonpub. 

opn.] (Luis N. I)), father’s purely derivative arguments 

challenging the visitation component of the exit order necessarily 

fail. Thus, we affirm.1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We hereby incorporate Sections I through VII of the Facts 

and Procedural Background section from our opinion in Luis N. I

and will not restate them here; we will renumber the sections 

herein as if they are a continuation of the Facts and Procedural 

Background section in Luis N. I. 

1 We deny the motion filed by the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services to dismiss this 

appeal. 
3

VIII. Father’s Appeal from the Jurisdictional and 

Dispositional Order

Father appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and 

dispositional order arguing, among other things, that the court 

erred in requiring him to participate in mental health services as 

part of his case plan. We affirmed that dispositional order in 

Luis N. I. 

IX. Termination of Jurisdiction With Exit Order

While father’s appeal in Luis N. I was pending, the juvenile 

court terminated jurisdiction over Luis on July 21, 2023, and 

issued an exit order granting mother sole legal and physical 

custody. Father was granted visitation with Luis for nine hours 

every other week, but the court ordered that the visitation be 

monitored because father had not completed numerous aspects of 

his case plan, including among them the requirement to undergo 

mental health services. 

X. Father’s Appeal

Father separately appealed the order terminating

jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

Father argues that if we agree with his challenge in Luis N. 

I to the dispositional order requiring him to participate in mental 

health services, then the juvenile court erred in basing the 

monitored visitation component of the exit order on, at least in 

part, father’s failure to comply with those mental health services. 

Father requests that we (1) reverse the exit order, (2) strike the 

portion of the exit order limiting him to monitored visitation, or 

(3) remand to the juvenile court to consider what type of 

visitation he should have with Luis without regard to his 

noncompliance with the mental health services. Father makes no 
4

argument challenging the termination of jurisdiction or the exit 

order that is independent of his hope that we reverse the 

dispositional order in Luis N. I.

Because we have rejected father’s challenge to the mental 

health services and have affirmed the dispositional order in Luis 

N. I, the wholly derivative appeal here from the termination of 

jurisdiction necessarily fails. Father’s only response is that until 

our decision in Luis N. I becomes final, we are paralyzed from 

moving forward with disposing of this current appeal. We 

disagree, particularly where, as here, father never sought to 

consolidate the two appeals to keep them on the same track. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350.) 

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

______________________, J.

HOFFSTADT

We concur:

_________________________, P. J.

LUI

_________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST