Court Opinion

ID: 9840619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 17:05:29.147501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:10.963449
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/19/23 In re N.M. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 N.M., a Person Coming Under                               B324779
 the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                 (Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No.
                                                                 22CCJP03127A)
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 E.C.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed.
      Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                              2
       Mother E.C. (Mother) noticed an appeal from the juvenile
court’s October 2022 disposition order in dependency proceedings
concerning her daughter N.M. The juvenile court took
dependency jurisdiction over N.M. based on its findings that
Mother physically and emotionally abused N.M. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 300, subds. (a), (c)) and placed N.M. at substantial risk of
serious physical harm from Mother’s alcohol abuse (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 300, subd. (b)).
       Mother’s opening brief on appeal advanced only one
assignment of error: the claim that the juvenile court
impermissibly delegated to N.M.’s therapist the court’s duty to
determine if visitation between Mother and N.M. would be
detrimental to the child. The actual visitation order the juvenile
court made, however, was not included in the appellate record at
the time of the filing of the opening brief.
       When filing its respondent’s brief, the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)
asked this court to augment the record with the juvenile court’s
case plan for Mother. The augmentation request was granted,
and the case plan includes an order for monitored visitation with
no requirement that the visitation must first be approved by a
therapist. In light of the visitation order the juvenile court
actually made, the Department argued we should dismiss
Mother’s appeal because she is not aggrieved by the juvenile
court’s disposition order. Mother thereafter notified this court
that she would not be filing a reply brief because the augmented
record materials “reveal[ ] details regarding the challenged
visitation order which were not included in the record on appeal.”
       The record as augmented establishes the juvenile court did
not err in the sole manner Mother argued was error. Rather than

                                 3
dismiss Mother’s appeal, we believe the appropriate course is to
affirm the juvenile court’s disposition order—and that is what we
shall do.

                         DISPOSITION
     The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                      BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

     MOOR, J.

     KIM, J.

                                4