Court Opinion

ID: 9902386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-26 23:02:11.53902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:49.805583
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/22/23 In re G.H. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

 In re G.H. et al., Persons Coming                               B325699
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          Super. Ct.
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            No. 21CCJP03752A-B

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 E.H.-C.,

           Defendant and Appellant;

 K.M.,

           Respondent.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Temporary Judge. Affirmed.
      Shaylah Roxanne Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Respondent.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
     Ann-Marissa Cook and Elisabeth Carter, Children’s Law
Center, for Minors.

                      ——————————

      E.H. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s December 5, 2022
custody and visitation order (Exit Order) under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 362.4.1 Father contends the Exit Order
does not accurately reflect the order made by the court on
November 28, 2022, and that the discrepancy is prejudicial to
him. We affirm.

                        BACKGROUND2

      After the court declared minors dependents under section
300, subdivisions (a) and (b), based on domestic violence between
mother and father and father’s alcohol abuse, it removed minors
from parental custody and ordered reunification services for
mother and father, including monitored visits. By the six-month
review hearing in May 2022, mother had made substantial
progress in her case plan, and the court ordered the children

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
      2 We “review the record in the light most favorable to the
court’s determinations.” (In re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101,
108.)

                                2
released to mother at maternal grandmother’s home. Father’s
progress had not been substantial, but he would continue
receiving services and monitored visits.
       According to the 12-month review report filed by the Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(Department), father tested negative for drugs 24 times between
May and October 2022, with one no-show on May 24, 2022. In
May 2022, father was arrested, but released with no charges
filed. Father’s visits with the children went well, but the
Department declined to liberalize father’s visits “due to the
nature of his arrest.” Father completed a parenting program and
26 weeks of a domestic violence program. He had continued
attending weekly individual therapy sessions, and his therapist
was ready to discharge him after the scheduled review hearing.
Father had not yet completed his substance abuse program
because he had missed a number of sessions.
       At the November 28, 2022 review hearing under section 364, the
juvenile court ordered dependency jurisdiction to terminate, pending
receipt of a custody order to be prepared by mother’s counsel ordering
the following: “Sole physical custody to Mother, joint legal
custody; monitored visits for the father based on the fact that he’s
only in partial compliance, that he has been inconsistent in his
drug program missing sessions, inconsistent with his A.A.
meetings, which is a very important component of maintaining
sobriety, and only attending a couple times per month. [¶] And
the court is going to order he get a minimum of nine hours of
monitored visits in a neutral setting. Mother is not to be present.
By a mutually agreed-upon monitor or professionally paid
monitor by the father.” The court continued: “I also am going to
order that the JV-206 include the case plan of the father so that

                                  3
he can go to family law court and request to have it modified once
he is in compliance with his case plan.”
       The custody order signed by the court on December 5, 2022,
consists of three Judicial Council forms: JV-200 (Custody Order-
Juvenile-Final Judgment), JV-205 (Visitation [Parenting Time]
Order-Juvenile), and JV-206 (Reasons For No Or Supervised
Visitation-Juvenile). Based on the checkboxes marked on the JV-
206 form, the court ordered supervised visitation because father
had not completed or had not made substantial progress in the
following programs: drug abuse treatment program with random
testing, domestic violence treatment program for offenders,
individual counseling, and “[o]ther,” followed by the text:
“Comply with all criminal court orders.”
       Father filed his notice of appeal on November 29, 2022. On
April 27, 2023, this court granted father’s request to correct the
notice of appeal to include the December 5, 2022 order.

                          DISCUSSION

      Father contends that because the Exit Order does not
accurately reflect the orders stated by the court on November 28,
2022, this court should reverse and remand with directions to
correct the Exit Order. Mother filed a respondent’s brief arguing
that father forfeited the issue by failing to object in the juvenile
court; alternatively, she argues that father has not shown
prejudice.3

      3 The Department did not file a respondent’s brief and
takes no position on the merits of father’s appeal. Minors
submitted a letter of non-objection, stating they agreed with
father’s contention and do not object to father’s request that the

                                 4
      We first briefly consider the question of prejudice. Father
claims he is prejudiced by the Exit Order because it incorrectly
implies that he has not substantially completed portions of his
case plan beyond the substance abuse program identified by the
court on November 28, 2022, limiting his ability to modify the
order in family court. The Supreme Court in In re Chantal S.
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203–204 held that section 362.4 gave the
juvenile court authority to place conditions on an exit order.
Those conditions then restrict the family court’s ability to modify
the juvenile court’s exit order, absent a change of circumstances.
(Heidi S. v. David H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1164 [“before
modifying the visitation schedule set forth in the exit order, the
family court must find a significant change of circumstances that
warrants that modification”].)4 Father claims that because the

matter be remanded to the juvenile court to correct the Exit
Order to ensure that it conforms to the court’s orders as stated on
the record.
      4 Heidi S., supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 1165 provides a more
detailed explanation of the relationship between the juvenile
court and family court with respect to custody and visitation
orders: “When the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction, it
issues an exit order ‘determining the custody of, or visitation
with, the child’ that becomes part of an existing family law case
or the basis for opening a family law file (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 362.4); the exit order ‘shall be a final judgment and shall
remain in effect after [the juvenile court’s] jurisdiction is
terminated.’ (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 302, subd. (d).) [¶] Once an
exit order is in place, ‘ “the paramount need for continuity and
stability in custody arrangements—and the harm that may result
from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional
bonds with the primary caretaker—weigh heavily in favor of
maintaining” that custody arrangement.’ (In re Marriage of

                                 5
additional programs are incorrectly listed as conditions of his
monitored visitation, he will be unable to obtain unmonitored
visits without repeating the programs. We agree with father that
based on the reporter’s transcript of the November 28, 2022
hearing, the court did not order father to repeat his entire case
plan to move to unmonitored visits. (People v. Holzmann (2018)
18 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1243, fn.1 [“when there is a conflict between
the reporter’s transcript and the clerk’s transcript, we adopt the
version due more credence under the circumstances”].) But
because the problem is a clerical error, rather than a judicial
error, father’s recourse is with the juvenile court and not on
appeal.
       Father should have simply sought a new or nunc pro tunc
order with the correct conditions on father’s monitored visits,
rather than pursuing the current appeal. “Trial courts have the
authority to enter nunc pro tunc orders to address clerical errors,
but not judicial errors.” (Sannmann v. Department of Justice
(2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 676, 683; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d)
[“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own
motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as
entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed”].)

Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 956.) The family court may
modify the exit order only if ‘the court finds that there has been a
significant change of circumstances since the juvenile court
issued the order and modification of the order is in the best
interests of the child.’ (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 302, subd. (d).)
Therefore, the moving party has a twofold burden, to show a
significant change of circumstances since the juvenile court
issued the exit order and to show why the requested modification
would be in the child’s best interests.”

                                 6
“An order made nunc pro tunc should correct clerical error by
placing on the record what was actually decided by the court but
was incorrectly recorded. It may not be used as a vehicle to
review an order for legal or judicial error by ‘correcting’ the order
in order to enter a new one.” (Hamilton v. Laine (1997) 57
Cal.App.4th 885, 891; see also In re Marriage of Padgett (2009)
172 Cal.App.4th 830, 851–855 [discussing use of nunc pro tunc
orders in marriage dissolution context].)
       Father argues in his reply brief that the issue was not
forfeited on appeal because the parties and their counsel were not
present in court on December 5, 2022, when the custody order
was signed and filed. However, father fails to explain why, once
December 5, 2022 order was filed and the discrepancy between
the court’s oral and written orders became apparent, it was not
brought to the court’s attention with a request to correct the
problem. “[A] reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a
challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not
made in the trial court.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287,
1293.) “Otherwise, opposing parties and trial courts would be
deprived of opportunities to correct alleged errors, and parties
and appellate courts would be required to deplete costly resources
‘to address purported errors which could have been rectified in
the trial court had an objection been made.’ [Citation.]” (In re
S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406.) “The forfeiture doctrine
has been applied in dependency proceedings in a wide variety of
contexts, including cases involving failures to obtain various
statutorily required reports [citation]; failure to object to the
adequacy of an adoption assessment [citations]; failure to request
an alternative placement [citation]; and failure to require expert
testimony and to make the required findings using the beyond-a-

                                 7
reasonable-doubt standard as mandated by ICWA [citation].” (In
re G.C. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1398–1399.)
       By failing to take steps to correct the clerical discrepancy
between what the court ordered on November 28, 2022, and what
appeared in the Exit Order signed by the court, father forfeited
the issue on appeal. Nothing in our opinion precludes father
from seeking a nunc pro tunc corrective order in the juvenile
court.

                         DISPOSITION

      The custody and visitation orders are affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     MOOR, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             KIM, J.

                                 8