Filed 7/26/22 In re E.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.R., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B314487

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 21CCJP01792A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Ed.R.,

Defendant and Appellant;

CARLA R.,

Intervener and Appellant.

In re J.R., a Person Coming B314498
2

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 21CCJP01864A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLA R. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from findings and orders of the Superior Court 

of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Dismissed in part 

and affirmed in part.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ed.R.

Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Intervener, Defendant and Appellant Carla R.

John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Minor E.R.
3

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Minors E.R. (born Mar. 2012) and J.R. (born Sept. 2019) 

share the same father, defendant and appellant Ed.R. (father).

E.R.’s mother, Claudia R. (Claudia), is presumed deceased. J.R.’s 

mother is father’s current wife, defendant and appellant Carla R. 

(Carla). E.R. and J.R. were each the subject of a separate

juvenile dependency petition brought under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300.1 The juvenile court consolidated 

the two dependency cases for all purposes.

At the August 4, 2021, adjudication hearing, the juvenile 

court declared E.R. and J.R. dependents of the court and removed 

them from father’s custody. The court denied Carla’s request to 

be deemed E.R.’s presumed parent and declined to place E.R. 

with her. Carla retained physical custody of J.R. under the 

supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children 

and Family Services (DCFS).

Father filed a notice of appeal from the jurisdictional 

findings and dispositional orders regarding E.R. Carla filed a 

notice of appeal from the order denying her request to be deemed 

E.R.’s presumed parent. From these, case No. B314487 ensued. 

Father and Carla also each filed a notice of appeal from the 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
4

jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders regarding J.R., 

and case No. B314498 ensued.

The only contention made by father and Carla in their 

appellate briefs is that the juvenile court abused its discretion by 

declining their requests for E.R. to be placed with Carla. As 

Carla failed to identify the juvenile court’s placement order of 

E.R. in her notice of appeal, we dismiss her appeal pertaining to 

E.R. (case No. B314487). Entertaining father’s appeal pertaining 

to E.R. on the merits, we find no abuse of the juvenile court’s 

discretion and, therefore, affirm the jurisdictional findings and 

dispositional orders regarding E.R. Because father and Carla 

raise no arguments pertaining to J.R., we dismiss their appeals 

as to the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders 

regarding him (case No. B314498).

BACKGROUND2

Father’s Marriage to Claudia

Father met E.R.’s mother, Claudia, on a trip to El Salvador 

in 2011. E.R. was born there in 2012. By 2014, father and 

Claudia had married, and Claudia moved with E.R. to the United 

States to live with father.

Father physically and emotionally abused Claudia.

Claudia obtained a temporary restraining order against father in 

August 2014, but she subsequently requested that it be dismissed

after father threatened to kill himself and take E.R. away. She

obtained another temporary restraining order against father in 

March 2016. In a declaration filed in mid-April 2016, Claudia 

described father’s threats to take E.R. away, father’s physical and 

2 Because father and Carla raise no issues related to J.R.’s 

dependency case in their briefs, this section only includes facts 

regarding J.R. that are relevant to E.R.’s dependency case.
5

verbal abuse of her, and an incident when father “became very 

irritable and violent, and started to hit [E.R.] in the head, with 

an open hand about [two] times and calling him names.”

In late April 2016, father convinced Claudia to give him 

another chance.

Claudia’s Disappearance

Father reported Claudia missing in May 2016. He claimed 

that he had last seen her three days earlier after he dropped her 

off to go “‘clubbing.’” Claudia has not been seen since and is now 

presumed deceased.

Father’s Marriage to Carla

Father met Carla around September 2016 and married her 

in a church ceremony in April 2017. In June 2017, father 

obtained a judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Claudia

and, thereafter, married Carla in a civil ceremony. In 2019, 

father and Carla had a son, J.R.

Father’s Arrest

In April 2021, father was arrested by federal authorities 

and charged with kidnapping resulting in the death of Claudia. 

(18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).) Father remained in custody throughout 

the dependency proceedings.

Upon father’s arrest, DCFS placed E.R. in foster care. J.R. 

remained in Carla’s care. E.R. told a social worker that he knew 

that Carla was not his biological mother and that he had a good 

relationship with her.

The DCFS social worker spoke with Carla on the day of 

father’s arrest. Carla claimed to not know anything about 

Claudia and that she had never met her. Carla nevertheless 

reported seeing Claudia at Carla’s place of work one or two years 

earlier. Carla denied calling law enforcement because she was 
6

not sure it was Claudia and did not know that Claudia was still a 

missing person. Asked what father had told her about his 

relationship with Claudia, Carla answered, “‘Just that they got 

divorced and if she (Claudia) really wanted to see [E.R.] then she 

would come[.]’” According to Carla, E.R. did not ask “‘a lot’” 

about Claudia. Carla stated: “‘We just tell him she’s not here 

and that she left to be with someone else[.]’” Carla did not know 

why E.R. had never been enrolled in counseling related to 

Claudia’s absence.

The DCFS social worker observed a forensic interview of 

E.R. conducted the day after father’s arrest. E.R. stated that he 

knew that father had been arrested but denied knowing the 

reason. He knew that Carla was not his biological mother, but he

stated that he did not remember his biological mother’s name and 

did not know the last memory he had of her. He remembered 

other events, however, such as details of father and Carla’s 

wedding. E.R. was shown several photographs of himself with 

Claudia and one with father. E.R. repeatedly stated that he did 

not know the people in the photographs. He fidgeted and 

appeared to be uncomfortable. The social worker believed that he 

had “been coached” not to speak of Claudia.

Dependency Petition

On April 19, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition 

seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction over E.R. 

pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), 

(b)(1) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support).

Counts a-1 and b-1 alleged that father physically abused E.R. by 

repeatedly striking his head. Counts b-2 and g-1 alleged that 
7

father remained incarcerated following his arrest and that he had 

failed to arrange for the ongoing care and supervision of E.R.

3

Carla’s Statement Regarding Parentage

Carla filed a statement regarding parentage on April 21, 

2021, in which she requested that the juvenile court find her to 

be E.R.’s presumed parent. She stated that E.R. had lived with 

her from June 2017 to April 15, 2021; that she had participated 

in various activities with E.R., including assisting him with 

homework and making him home-cooked meals; and that she 

“treat[ed] [E.R.] as if he [were] [her] own biological child.”

Detention Hearing

At the detention hearing on April 22, 2021, the juvenile 

court found that a prima facie showing had been made that E.R. 

was a person described by section 300. Carla, joined by father, 

requested placement of E.R. with her. The court ordered a 

prerelease investigation to assess Carla and reserved the 

presumed parent issue until the jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing. The court detained E.R. in shelter care under DCFS 

supervision.

Prerelease Investigation

DCFS filed its prerelease investigation regarding Carla on 

May 20, 2021. According to the investigation, Carla had quit her 

job the previous month. With no source of income other than 

what father had left her, she had stopped paying the mortgage on 

the family home and had recently applied for Cal-Works. DCFS 

3 On April 22, 2021, DCFS filed a separate dependency 

petition on behalf of J.R. under section 300, subdivisions (a), 

(b)(1), and (j) (abuse of sibling). On July 9, 2021, the juvenile 

court consolidated for all purposes the case pertaining to J.R. 

with the case pertaining to E.R.
8

also reported that it had become aware of several incidents of 

domestic violence between father and Carla. DCFS 

recommended against placement of E.R. with Carla.

First Amended Dependency Petition

DCFS filed a first amended dependency petition on May 21, 

2021, on behalf of E.R., which added a b-3 count to allege that 

father and Carla had a history of engaging in violent altercations 

in E.R.’s presence.4

Arraignment

Father entered a denial at the arraignment hearing on 

May 21, 2021. Father’s counsel requested that E.R. be placed 

with Carla, and the juvenile court ordered DCFS to continue 

investigating placement with her. The court permitted father to 

write E.R. a letter but required him to first send it to the social 

worker to determine the propriety of giving it to E.R.

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

E.R., who remained in foster care, was interviewed by a 

DCFS dependency investigator in mid-May 2021. E.R. denied 

any type of abuse by Carla. He stated that he wanted to return 

home to Carla, father, and J.R. When asked what he liked the 

most about living with Carla, E.R. replied, “‘Well she’s not my 

real mom, but I call her mom. She’s my mom and I like living 

with her. . . .’” E.R. hesitated when he was asked if he felt safe 

with Carla. When asked again, he stated, “‘Well, sometimes I 

feel safe.’” E.R. proceeded to explain that father and Carla

sometimes fought, which scared him.

4 DCFS also filed an amended petition on the same day on 

behalf of J.R., which added counts regarding domestic violence 

between father and Carla.
9

E.R. described witnessing four incidents of domestic 

violence between father and Carla. During the first incident, 

Carla hit father with a wooden ruler. When asked if father hit 

Carla, E.R. replied, “‘He didn’t hit her, he just shoved and pushed 

her a little, but he didn’t really hit her.’” During the second 

incident, father and Carla were fighting inside the home, and 

Carla went outside to break father’s car window with a small 

rock. When asked why father and Carla were arguing, E.R. 

stated: “‘I think it’s because I told my mom that my dad was 

married to another lady that was my real mom. My mom then 

said, oh really, he was.’” He further explained: “‘[M]y dad told 

me, don’t talk to your mom about your other mom. She does not 

like that.’” Regarding the third incident, E.R. reported that Carla

tried to jump out of the car on the freeway while she and father 

were arguing. Finally, during the fourth incident, father pushed 

Carla, who fell on the couch.

When interviewed, Carla denied that she hit father with a 

ruler, that father shoved her, or that she tried to get out of the 

car.

DCFS continued to have concerns about Carla’s ability to 

care for E.R. “due to her complete denial of the case related 

issues.” DCFS noted that Carla had “not demonstrated any 

insight of the critical circumstances” in her life and had indicated 

that she would continue her relationship with father despite his 

arrest charges. According to DCFS, Carla’s “denial of the case 

circumstances” and “denial of . . . father’s violent behaviors” 

placed E.R. “at risk of unlimited abuse and neglect and . . . in an 

environment where he will continue to be alienated from his 

biological mother and/or the memory of his biological mother.”
10

DCFS also questioned Carla’s bond with E.R. Following 

the detention hearing, Carla had “not demonstrated an urgency 

to have [E.R.] released to her . . . .” E.R.’s foster parents reported 

that, since E.R. had been placed in their home, Carla had only 

initiated calls with E.R. twice. E.R. would call Carla, but a few 

times she did not take his calls. Carla and J.R. were receiving inperson visits with E.R. once a week for one hour. The foster 

parents reported that they had to continuously remind Carla not 

to speak to E.R. about case-related issues and, during her first inperson visit with E.R., Carla “refused to comply with monitored 

visits and at one point, ‘walked away with the child to have a 

private conversation for like a minute.’”

DCFS believed “that placing [E.R.] in the home of [Carla] 

w[ould] place him at risk of yet another traumatic experience 

that may have more negative impacts in his development and 

mental health if there is no appropriate parent/child bond and 

attachment. It is in the child’s best interest that he remain in his 

current placement to allow [Carla] the opportunity to 

demonstrate to the Department her commitment to the child and 

allow the child to explore/express[] his feelings (through 

counseling) about the case related issues outside the hostile 

environment (domestic violence) he was exposed to. Even though 

the Department does not ignore that the child’s best interest 

should be in relative placement, in this case the child was living 

in a distorted home environment where critical circumstances 

([Claudia’s] disappearance, possibly murder by the father, 

current parental domestic violence) have occurred that continue 

to place the child at risk of emotional and physical harm.”

DCFS assessed Carla as “clearly . . . a battered woman who 

continues to struggle with leaving her abusive relationship due to 
11

fear, mostly to not making it on her own.” DCFS strongly 

suspected that Carla had not been forthcoming. According to 

DCFS, it appeared that “father was in control of the household 

day to day task[s] as Carla appeared oblivious to the children’s 

doctor’s information, medical, dental and even her own legal 

marital status.”

DCFS recommended that Carla not be found to be E.R.’s 

presumed parent.

Last Minute Information for the Court (June 2, 2021)

The DCFS dependency investigator spoke to Carla again on 

June 1, 2021. Carla reported that she cooked, cleaned, and cared 

for E.R. but that it was father “who ‘usually’ made the legal 

decisions over [him].” Carla stated: “‘[Father] would usually 

make all the appointments for us. We would all go to the doctor 

and dental appointments as a family. I only took [E.R.] to the 

doctor’s a couple of times.’” Carla continued to speak with father 

one to two times per week. Carla did not believe the charges 

against father were true and did not believe that he was a risk to 

E.R. or J.R. She would, however, be willing to comply with court 

orders and not allow father access to the children.

Last Minute Information for the Court (July 7, 2021)

DCFS reported that E.R.’s foster parents were providing 

“excellent” care of E.R. During his monitored visits with Carla

and J.R., E.R. played and engaged with J.R. During various 

visits, Carla had letters she brought from father intercepted.

Carla also needed redirection as she attempted “to engage in side 

conversations and discuss the case with [E.R.].” Carla had also 

attempted to change the location of a visit without DCFS’s 

consent.
12

Addendum Report

Carla had completed eight virtual parenting classes.

Regarding the incident when Carla tried to give E.R. a letter 

from father without DCFS approval, Carla stated that she had 

not been aware that she was not permitted to do so.

July 9, 2021, Hearing

On July 9, 2021, the juvenile court held a hearing on 

Carla’s request to be deemed E.R.’s presumed parent. Carla’s 

counsel and father’s counsel argued in favor, while DCFS’s 

counsel and E.R.’s counsel argued against.5 The court deferred 

ruling on the issue until the adjudication hearing.

Last Minute Information for the Court (Aug. 3, 2021)

Although Carla was consistent in her visitation with E.R., 

the foster father reported that Carla had begun to arrive up to 20 

minutes late to every visit despite being advised to arrive on 

time.

Adjudication Hearing

The adjudication hearing was held on August 4, 2021.

As for the dependency petition pertaining to E.R., the 

juvenile court sustained the b-2 and g-1 counts regarding father’s 

failure to arrange for the ongoing care and supervision of E.R.6

5 During her argument, Carla’s counsel disputed that Carla 

had ever given E.R. a letter from father and instead contended 

that she had given it to the foster father.

6 The sustained b-2 and g-1 counts state: “[E.R.] has no 

parent to provide care, supervision and the basic necessities of 

life including, but not limited to food, shelter, clothing and 

medical care . . . in that [E.R.’s] mother [Claudia] . . . is 

deceased. . . . [F]ather . . . was arrested on [April 15, 2021] for 

kidnapping and murder of . . . mother [Claudia], and remains 
13

and the b-3 count regarding domestic violence between father 

and Carla.

7 The court dismissed the a-1 and b-1 counts alleging

father’s physical abuse of E.R.

The juvenile court stated that father “seems to be able to 

manipulate and control [Carla] as to this case and the pending 

criminal case. She seems to be acting as a conduit to . . . father 

and trying to help him ensure that [E.R.] is kept with family 

members so that he doesn’t talk.” Finding Carla “not 

protective[,]” the court also noted that Carla denied the incidents 

of domestic violence between her and father and did not “seem to 

be alarmed by anything in” the law enforcement affidavit 

regarding father’s alleged abuse and murder of Claudia. The 

incarcerated. Further, . . . father has failed to arrange for the 

ongoing care and supervision of [E.R.]. Such lack of a parent 

endangers [E.R.’s] physical health and safety and places [him] at 

serious risk . . . of physical harm, damage and danger.”

7 The sustained b-3 count states: “[F]ather . . . and . . . 

[Carla] have a history of engaging in violent altercations in the 

presence of [E.R.]. On a prior occasion, . . . father and . . . [Carla] 

engaged in a violent altercation, resulting in [Carla] repeatedly 

striking . . . father’s back with a wooden ruler, causing the ruler 

to break on . . . father’s back. On a prior occasion, . . . father 

pushed and shoved [Carla], resulting in [Carla] falling on to the 

couch. On a prior occasion, . . . father and [Carla] engaged in a 

violent altercation, resulting in [Carla] breaking . . . father’s 

vehicle window with a rock. On a prior occasion . . . father and 

[Carla] engaged in another violent altercation while in a moving 

vehicle, resulting in [Carla] attempting to jump out of the moving 

vehicle in the presence of [E.R.]. Such violent conduct on the part 

of . . . father and [Carla] endangers [E.R.’s] physical and 

emotional health and safety and places [him] at risk of physical 

and emotional harm, damage and danger.”
14

court found that Carla was not “particularly credible” and further 

explained that Carla “made conflicting statements over time in 

the criminal investigation and . . . is dismissive of this history of 

father’s obsession with the first mother and his desire to harm 

her and the numerous steps he took to do that.”

Following its jurisdictional findings, the juvenile court 

heard testimony from Carla. She testified that she visited E.R. 

every Saturday for one hour and denied that she had ever been 

20 minutes late for a visit. She also explained that she would 

sometimes call E.R. but not receive a response, so she waited for 

him to call her almost every day. Carla testified that she had 

received a letter from father for E.R., which she gave to the foster 

father because she had been told to give anything for E.R. to him.

After allowing additional argument from counsel, the 

juvenile court found that there was insufficient evidence to find 

Carla to be E.R.’s presumed parent and therefore denied her 

request to be deemed as such. The court explained that Carla

“was a caretaker, but she was clearly second to father as the lead 

parent and she didn’t hold herself out openly as [E.R.’s] parent.”

The court found that Carla did “not have a significant 

relationship [with E.R.] beyond the mere fact that they all lived 

in a home together and some familial relationship developed.”

The court found the statements of E.R.’s caregivers and DCFS to 

be “credible as to the extent and quality of [Carla’s] contact with 

[E.R.]” and concluded that “it [was] not the type of contact a 

parent has with their child if they see themselves as the parent.”

The court expressed concerns about Carla’s motive in seeking to 

become E.R.’s presumed parent. The court observed: “It is 

extraordinary, the level of coaching that has occurred with [E.R.], 

to the point of he won’t even say it is him in the picture with his 
15

natural mother.” While the court could not “say that [Carla] did 

that coaching,” the court stated that “she certainly seem[ed] to be 

willing to go along with it . . . .” The court noted that there would 

be a loss of the relationship between E.R. and Carla, but that 

factor had to be “balanced” with efforts “to thwart the 

investigation and to get [E.R.] to forget he had a mother before,” 

which the court found to be “extremely damaging.”

The juvenile court declared E.R. a dependent of the court 

and removed him from father. The court concluded that it was 

not appropriate for E.R. to live with Carla.

In the consolidated case regarding J.R., the juvenile court 

sustained the counts in the dependency petition under 

section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), regarding domestic 

violence between father and Carla; dismissed counts alleging 

father’s physical abuse of E.R.; declared J.R. a dependent of the 

court; and removed J.R. from father’s custody. Carla retained 

physical custody of J.R. under DCFS supervision.

Appeals

Regarding E.R., Carla filed a timely notice of appeal from 

the August 4, 2021, “finding that [Carla] is not a presumed 

parent.” Father filed a timely notice of appeal from the August 4, 

2021, jurisdictional findings, declaration of dependency, and 

removal of E.R. Case No. B314487 ensued. Father and Carla 

also filed separate timely notices of appeal from the August 4, 

2021, jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders regarding 

J.R., and case No. B314498 ensued. Father moved to consolidate 

case No. B314498 regarding J.R. with case No. B314487 

regarding E.R. We granted the motion to consolidate on 

December 27, 2021.
16

DISCUSSION

I. Appeals Regarding E.R. (Case No. B314487)

Both father and Carla contend that the juvenile court 

abused its discretion by declining to place E.R. with Carla.

A. Carla’s appeal is dismissed

DCFS, joined by E.R.,

8 argues that Carla’s and father’s 

appeals should be dismissed because their notices of appeal failed 

to identify the only order they challenge in their opening briefs—

the juvenile court’s denial of their requests to place E.R. with 

Carla.

“A timely notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the Court of 

Appeal. [Citations.]” (Adoption of Alexander S. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 

857, 864.) We must liberally construe a notice of appeal and find 

it “sufficient if it identifies the particular judgment or order being 

appealed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.100(a)(2), 8.405(a)(3).) 

“[N]otices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as to protect 

the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what appellant was 

trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not 

possibly have been misled or prejudiced.” (Luz v. Lopes (1960) 

55 Cal.2d 54, 59 (Luz).)

“But there are limits to our ability to liberally construe a 

notice of appeal. ‘The policy of liberally construing a notice of 

appeal in favor of its sufficiency [citation] does not apply if the 

notice is so specific it cannot be read as reaching a judgment or 

8 We appointed appellate counsel to represent E.R. based on 

the recommendation of his trial counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 5.661.) E.R. filed a respondent’s brief in which he joined in 

the combined statement of the case and facts section and the 

argument section of DCFS’s respondent’s brief. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.200(a)(5).)
17

order not mentioned at all.’ [Citations.] ‘[I]t is well “beyond 

liberal construction” to view an appeal from one order as an 

appeal from a “further and different order.” [Citation.] “Despite 

the rule favoring liberal interpretation of notices of appeal, a 

notice of appeal will not be considered adequate if it completely 

omits any reference to the judgment being appealed.” [Citation.] 

“The rule favoring appealability in cases of ambiguity cannot 

apply where there is a clear intention to appeal from only . . . one 

of two separate appealable judgments or orders.”’ [Citation.]

Therefore, when a notice of appeal manifests a ‘“clear and 

unmistakable”’ intent to appeal only from one order, we cannot 

liberally construe the notice to apply to a different, omitted order. 

[Citations.]” (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 76.)

Applying this law, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction 

over Carla’s appeal regarding E.R. because her notice of appeal 

failed to identify the denial of her request for placement. (See 

Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 170 [“We have no 

jurisdiction over an order not mentioned in the notice of appeal. 

[Citation.]”].) Instead, Carla’s notice of appeal unambiguously 

stated that she appealed from the “8/4/2021 finding that [she] is 

not a presumed parent” and advised to “[s]ee also 7/9/21, 6/4/21, 

5/26/21, 5/21/21, 4/27/21, 4/22/21[.]” It did not reference any 

custody order or, more specifically, the denial of the request to 

have E.R. placed with her. To view Carla’s notice of appeal from 

the order denying her presumed parent status as a notice of 

appeal from a custody order that happened to occur at the same 

hearing would far exceed any reasonable liberal construction of 

the notice. Given that Carla does not challenge the denial of 
18

presumed parent status in her opening brief, we must dismiss 

her appeal in case No. B314487.

9

We come to a different conclusion, however, regarding 

father’s appeal. On the first page of his notice of appeal, father 

stated that he was appealing from the following: “8/4/2021—the 

court sustained the b-2, b-3, and g-1 allegations.” On the second 

page, he checked the boxes indicating that his appeal was from 

the declaration of dependency under section 360 “with review of 

section 300 jurisdictional findings” and from the “[r]emoval of 

custody from parent or guardian” at the August 4, 2021, hearing.

By identifying the removal of custody, we find that father made it 

“reasonably clear” (Luz, supra, 55 Cal.2d at p. 59) that he was 

appealing from the dispositional orders regarding custody at the 

August 4, 2021, hearing, which encompass the order denying his 

request for E.R. to be placed with Carla. We therefore have 

jurisdiction to entertain his appeal in case No. B314487.

B. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion

Turning to the merits of father’s appeal, we conclude that it 

was well within the juvenile court’s discretion to deny the request 

to place E.R. with Carla.

10

1. Applicable law

When “a child is removed from the physical custody of his 

or her parents pursuant to [s]ection 361, preferential 

consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child 

9 Because we dismiss Carla’s appeal on this basis, we need 

not address DCFS’s argument that Carla lacks standing to 

challenge custody orders relating to E.R.

10 Even if we were to deem Carla’s notice of appeal sufficient, 

her arguments would fail for the same reasons as father’s 

arguments.
19

for placement of the child with the relative . . . .” (§ 361.3, 

subd. (a).) “‘Preferential consideration’ means that the relative 

seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered 

and investigated.” (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(1).) A relative in this 

context includes a stepparent. (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(2).)

In assessing whether placement with a relative is 

appropriate, the juvenile court must consider a variety of factors, 

including the wishes of the parent, placement of siblings and half 

siblings in the same home, the nature and duration of the 

relationship between the child and the relative, and the ability of

the relative to protect the child from his or her parents. (§ 361.3, 

subd. (a)(1)-(8).) “[T]he ‘best interests of the child’ is the linchpin 

of the analysis.” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 

1068 (Robert L.); accord, Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 

116 Cal.App.4th 856, 862–863 (Alicia B.).)

“[P]referential consideration under section 361.3 ‘does not 

create an evidentiary presumption in favor of a relative, but 

merely places the relative at the head of the line when the court 

is determining which placement is in the child’s best interests.’ 

[Citation.] In other words, when a child is taken from his 

parents’ care and requires placement outside the home, 

section 361.3 assures an interested relative that his or her 

application for placement will be considered before a stranger’s 

request. [Citations.]” (Alicia B., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 863.)

2. Standard of review

We review a juvenile court’s placement order for abuse of 

discretion. (Alicia B., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 863; Robert L., 

supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1060, 1067.) “A court abuses its 

discretion only when ‘“‘the trial court has exceeded the limits of 
20

legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently 

absurd determination.’”’ [Citation.]” (In re Caden C. (2021) 

11 Cal.5th 614, 641 (Caden C.).)

3. Analysis

The record reflects that Carla was afforded preferential 

consideration for placement of E.R. Upon Carla’s and father’s 

requests at the detention hearing that E.R. be placed with Carla, 

the juvenile court ordered DCFS to conduct a prerelease 

investigation. DCFS timely conducted its investigation and filed 

its report. The court found it was not appropriate to place E.R. 

with Carla at the adjudication hearing.

This decision was well within the juvenile court’s discretion 

given its well-founded concerns that Carla was “not protective[,]”

that she was acting as a conduit for father’s attempts to keep 

E.R. quiet, and that she was dismissive of the evidence of father’s 

abuse of Claudia and the allegations against him regarding her 

disappearance. (See § 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(D) [in assessing 

propriety of relative placement, the court must consider the 

relative’s ability to protect the child from his or her parents].) 

Furthermore, the court had made jurisdictional findings—

unchallenged on appeal—that Carla had engaged in domestic 

violence with father in E.R.’s presence which placed E.R. at risk 

of physical and emotional harm. Specifically, the court found 

that Carla repeatedly struck father with a wooden spoon, that 

she broke the window of father’s vehicle, and that she attempted 

to jump out of a moving vehicle. (See § 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(A) [the 

court must consider the relative’s ability provide a safe and 

secure home for the child].) Under these circumstances, we 

cannot say that the court made an arbitrary, capricious, or 
21

patently absurd determination that E.R. should not be placed 

with Carla.

Father nevertheless argues that other factors supported 

placing E.R. with Carla, including Carla’s lack of a criminal

record, the length of her relationship with E.R., and that it would 

cause E.R. to be reunited with his half brother, J.R. That may be 

so (see § 361.3, subd. (a)(4)-(6)), but the abuse of discretion 

standard prevents us from reweighing the facts and substituting 

our judgment for that of the juvenile court. (See Caden C., supra, 

11 Cal.5th at p. 641 [“‘“‘[w]hen two or more inferences can 

reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no 

authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’”’ 

[Citations.]”].)

Father also contends that the juvenile court’s concerns 

about coaching E.R. and trying to make him forget Claudia were 

speculative. We cannot agree. The court was rightfully 

concerned about psychological manipulation of E.R., which was so 

pronounced that E.R. even denied recognizing father and himself 

in pictures that included Claudia. The court acknowledged that 

it could not say that Carla was the one who coached E.R., but it 

recognized that she was part of a familial dynamic that helped 

facilitate it. Carla admitted to telling E.R. that Claudia had left 

to be with someone else, and she did not know why E.R. had 

never been enrolled in counseling to cope with Claudia’s absence.

Nor are we swayed by father’s arguments that the juvenile 

court had a “misplaced” concern about how placing E.R. with 

Carla would affect father’s criminal case and that the DCFS 

“social worker attached unwarranted significance to aspects of 

Carla’s visitation and contact with E.R.” (Bolding omitted.)

Although the court noted its concern about efforts “to thwart the 
22

investigation[,]” this was mentioned in the context of what would 

be “extremely damaging” to E.R. The court properly maintained 

its focus on the best interests of E.R. And, even if the social 

worker attached undue significance to certain issues, it does not 

mean that the court did so as well. Father concedes as much, 

acknowledging that “[i]n rendering its decision, the juvenile court 

did not expressly rely on any of [the social worker’s] complaints 

related to Carla’s visitation and contact with E.R.”

II. Appeals Regarding J.R. (Case No. B314498)

Father and Carla assert no arguments challenging the 

jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders regarding J.R. 

made at the August 4, 2021, adjudication hearing. “When an 

appellant’s briefs fail ‘to make any arguments to support any 

theory of error,’ but there is no basis to conclude the appeal is 

frivolous, the appeal is deemed abandoned. [Citation.] ‘In this 

circumstance, dismissal of the appeal, with no consideration on 

the merits as to the correctness of the judgment or order from 

which the appeal is taken, is the proper disposition.’ [Citation.]” 

(In re Mary C. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 793, 809.) Accordingly, we 

dismiss father’s and Carla’s appeals in case No. B314498

pertaining to J.R.
23

DISPOSITION

In case No. B314487, the August 4, 2021, jurisdictional 

findings and dispositional orders regarding E.R. are affirmed. 

Carla’s appeal regarding E.R. in case No. B314487 is dismissed.

In case No. B314498, father’s and Carla’s appeals of the 

August 4, 2021, jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders 

regarding J.R. are dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

_____________________, Acting P. J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT