Court Opinion

ID: 9353814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 20:02:10.811958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:55.459536
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/11/23 In re Khalanni M. CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

 In re KHALANNI M., a Person                                         B315573
 Coming Under the Juvenile Court
 Law.                                                                (Los Angeles County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No. 20LJJP00258A)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 KHALIL M.,

           Defendant and Appellant;

 A.B.,

           Defendant and Respondent.
      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robin Kesler, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
      Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Respondent.
      Dawyn H. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
             ____________________________________

                       INTRODUCTION

      In this case involving three-year-old Khalanni M., the
juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and entered an order
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4,
subdivision (a),1 awarding Khalanni’s mother sole legal and
physical custody and limiting unmonitored visits between
Khalanni and her father, Khalil M., to two hours a week. Khalil
appeals from that custody and visitation order, commonly
referred to as an “exit order” (In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th
503, 513), arguing the court abused its discretion in not awarding
him joint legal custody and in restricting his unmonitored visits
to two hours a week. We affirm.

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                2
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      A.     In Khalil’s Previous Appeal, We Affirm the Juvenile
             Court’s Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition Order
             Concerning Khalanni
       In 2020 the Los Angeles County Department of Children
and Family Services filed section 300 petitions asserting juvenile
court jurisdiction over two of Khalil’s children: Khalil M. Jr.,2
whose mother is Cheyanne N., and Khalanni, whose mother is
Arviana B. The Department alleged Khalil Jr. came within the
court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1),
because, among other reasons, Khalil had abused Khalil Jr. by
hitting him in the chest, Khalil and Cheyanne had a history of
violent physical altercations, and Khalil had threatened to kill
Cheyanne and shoot her family members. The Department
alleged Khalanni also came within the court’s jurisdiction under
section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), because, among other
reasons, Khalil and Arviana had a history of verbal and physical
altercations, Khalil had physically abused Khalanni’s half-sibling
Khalil Jr., and Khalil had a history of violent altercations with
Cheyanne. (In re Khalil M. Jr. (Sept. 15, 2021, B309621,
B309622) [nonpub. opn.] (Khalil I).)
       In December 2020 the juvenile court consolidated the
petitions for a jurisdiction hearing at which the court sustained
both petitions. At disposition the court declared Khalil Jr. and
Khalanni dependent children of the juvenile court, removed both
children from Khalil (and Khalil Jr. from Cheyanne), and placed
Khalanni with Arviana. (Khalil I, supra.)

2    In September 2021, when we decided Khalil’s previous
appeal, Khalil Jr. was four years old.

                                 3
      Khalil appealed from the jurisdiction findings and
disposition orders for both children. In September 2021 we
affirmed the jurisdiction findings and disposition order for
Khalanni and affirmed those for Khalil Jr. on the condition the
juvenile court and the Department redress their failure to comply
with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). (Khalil I, supra.)

      B.     The Juvenile Court Terminates Its Jurisdiction over
             Khalanni, Awards Sole Legal and Physical Custody
             to Arviana, and Limits Khalil’s Unmonitored Visits
      Meanwhile, on June 7, 2021 the juvenile court held a
section 364 review hearing in this case (Khalanni’s). In
anticipation of terminating its jurisdiction, the court continued
the hearing to allow Khalil and Arviana to participate in
mediation regarding custody and visitation. Over objections by
the Department, Arviana, and counsel for Khalanni, the court
ordered that in the meantime Khalil—who, since at least
December 2020, had been allowed only monitored visits with
Khalanni—could have one unmonitored two-hour visit each week,
provided he maintained satisfactory drug test results.3 The court
indicated its tentative decision for a custody and visitation order
was to award joint legal custody to Khalil and Arviana.
      After their mediation, Khalil and Arviana entered into an
agreement subject to amendment and final approval by the
juvenile court. The agreement provided Khalanni would live

3     In December 2020 the juvenile court ordered two monitored
two-hour visits each week for Khalil. Later, at some time before
the June 2021 hearing, the Department liberalized this to one
monitored visit each Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

                                4
with Arviana, and it set forth two visitation plans for Khalil. The
first provided that every Saturday Khalil would have an
unmonitored visit from noon to 2:00 p.m. and a monitored visit
from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The second provided that, “[u]pon
Court approval of all visitation (parenting time) being
unsupervised,” Khalil would “have parenting time every other
weekend,” from 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 p.m. Sunday. The
agreement also included provisions that would apply “[i]f the
court orders Joint Legal [custody].”
       On July 9, 2021 the juvenile court resumed the section 364
review hearing. After indicating it had received the mediation
agreement, the court ordered that Khalil would continue to have
one unmonitored two-hour visit each week and found good cause
to continue the hearing again, this time to August 6, 2021.
       On August 5, 2021 Khalil filed a motion to dismiss the
previously sustained “domestic violence allegations” concerning
him and Arviana because of “new evidence.” The new evidence,
according to Khalil, was a series of text messages he received
from Arviana after the juvenile court sustained the allegations.
He argued the messages showed Arviana “did not tell the
‘TRUTH’ regarding the domestic violence allegations.”
       On August 6, 2021 the juvenile court resumed the section
364 hearing. The court began by hearing and denying Khalil’s
motion. The court also indicated the motion made it “rethink” its
order allowing Khalil unmonitored visitation, as well as the
court’s tentative decision for joint legal custody, because the
motion suggested Khalil did not take responsibility for his prior
domestic violence. Regarding the mediation agreement, the
juvenile court ruled Arviana would have sole legal custody of
Khalanni, and the court struck the provision that would have

                                 5
allowed all Khalil’s visits to be unsupervised. The court
expressed its concern about Khalil’s failure to accept
responsibility for the fact the case was before the court, his
continuing “attempt for power and control” over Arviana, and his
“inability to communicate appropriately” with her. The court
terminated its jurisdiction, awarded sole legal and physical
custody to Arviana, ordered visitation for Khalil as provided in
the amended mediation agreement (i.e., two hours of
unmonitored visitation, followed by four hours of monitored
visitation, on Saturdays), and stayed the order terminating
jurisdiction pending receipt of a custody and visitation order.
The court subsequently received and filed an exit order reflecting
its rulings on custody and visitation. Khalil timely appealed.4

                         DISCUSSION

       Khalil contends the juvenile court erred in making its
custody and visitation order. Specifically, he argues the court
should have awarded joint legal custody of Khalanni, allowed all
his visits with her be unmonitored, and ordered overnight visits
as provided in the provision of the mediation agreement the court
struck. These arguments lack merit.
       In making custody and visitation orders under section
362.4, a juvenile court must be “guided by the totality of the

4     In addition to appealing from the custody and visitation
order, Khalil appealed from the juvenile court’s August 6, 2021
order denying his “motion for new evidence.” Because his briefs
do not address that order, however, Khalil has abandoned that
aspect of his appeal. (See In re M.B. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 617,
620, fn. 1.)

                                6
circumstances in issuing orders that are in the child’s best
interests.” (In re C.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 101, 109; see In re
T.S., supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 513-514.) We review a juvenile
court’s custody and visitation order for abuse of discretion. (In re
M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.) “An appealed-from
judgment or order is presumed correct” (In re Sade C. (1996)
13 Cal.4th 952, 994), and “all legitimate inferences are indulged
in to uphold the juvenile court’s determinations” (In re K.S.
(2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 327, 337).
       The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding
sole legal custody to Arviana instead of joint legal custody. In
particular, the record supported the court’s concern Khalil did not
cooperate and communicate with Arviana, as required of parents
exercising joint legal custody. (See Fam. Code, § 3003 [“‘Joint
legal custody’ means that both parents shall share the right and
the responsibility to make the decisions relating to the health,
education, and welfare of a child.”].) For example, in a last
minute information report filed on August 6, 2021, the
Department stated Arviana said that, when communicating with
Khalil to arrange visits and other matters, she felt “bullied and
harassed by” him, did “not want to get into a confrontation with”
him, and agreed “with his requests so he [would] just leave her
alone.” The Department also reported that Khalil “is unable to
set up a visit between himself and mother without a monitor
involved” and that he “continues to demand things his way,
which is more of a child mentality than [an] adult mentality.”
       Nor did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in continuing
to allow Khalil one unmonitored two-hour visit each week, rather
than ordering all his visits be unmonitored and include overnight
visits. When the court made its custody and visitation order on

                                 7
August 6, 2021, the court (over objections by the Department,
Arviana, and Khalanni) had been allowing Khalil to have
unmonitored visits with Khalanni—once weekly, for two hours—
since June 7, 2021. The record reflects that during that period of
over eight weeks Khalil had only three unmonitored two-hour
visits with Khalanni (for a total of six hours), the last of which
occurred on July 4, 2021, four weeks before the hearing. Not a lot
of time or visits to evaluate whether unmonitored visitation was
in Khalanni’s best interests. The Department reported that, at
one point in that period, Khalil went 24 days without arranging
for any kind of visit with Khalanni and “refused to set up an
unmonitored visit,” even though Arviana made Khalanni
available. The Department also reported that on August 2, 2021
Khalil hung up on one of its social workers when she contacted
Khalil and asked for a date he could pick up Khalanni for an
unmonitored visit. Without seeing more—and more regular—
unmonitored visits by Khalil, the court reasonably concluded it
was not in Khalanni’s best interests to have all of Khalil’s visits
with Khalanni be unmonitored or to allow overnight visits.

                                8
                         DISPOSITION

      The juvenile court’s custody and visitation order is
affirmed.

                                     SEGAL, J.

We concur:

             PERLUSS, P. J.

             FEUER, J.

                                 9