In re London B. CA2/8 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/20/23 In re London B. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re LONDON B. et al., Persons B322710
Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law. Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. Nos. 19CCJP00938C–D
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DANIELLE L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Stephen C. Marpet, Referee. Appeal dismissed.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
The Department of Children and Family Services in Los
Angeles (the department) filed a petition alleging Danielle L.
(Mother) physically struck seven-year-old London B. with a
baseball bat and had struck her on prior occasions with a
hairbrush and a belt. The petition also alleged London and her
five-year-old sibling B.B. were prior dependents of the court due
to sustained allegations of physical abuse of London by Mother in
2019 and domestic violence between the parents in 2016. In the
most recent prior case, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction
on April 26, 2019, awarding Father sole physical and legal
custody and limited monitored visitation for Mother.
The juvenile court detained the children and released them
to Father. At the adjudication hearing on October 5, 2021, the
juvenile court found the allegations true, sustained the petition,
declared the children dependents of the court, and ordered
enhanced services and monitored visitation for Mother. The
children remained placed with Father under a plan of family
maintenance.
Mother had regular monitored visitation with the children
until June 22, 2022. She then stopped visiting because of
objections to the department’s chosen monitor. In a last minute
report to the court for a status review hearing on August 8, 2022,
London’s therapist reported London had been diagnosed with
PTSD, “the worst case of PTSD” the therapeutic team had ever
observed and treated in a child. B.B. hysterically cried and was
anxious when he believed London was being hurt or could be hurt
or when Mother became angry with London or others in his
presence. Mother also directed Father not to contact her with
information about the children and she did not reach out to the
children’s providers directly for updates on their care.
2
On August 8, 2022, after a contested hearing on visitation
and custody orders, the court terminated jurisdiction over the
children with an order that Father have sole legal and physical
custody and mother have monitored visitation. The court then
dismissed the case. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
Counsel for Mother has filed a no issue brief pursuant to In
re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. We notified Mother that a
no issue brief had been filed on her behalf and we invited her to
file a supplemental letter setting forth any issues she believed
should be reviewed by this court. Mother filed a letter asking us
to modify the court’s order. She does not specify which order she
wants modified. We assume it is the final exit order determining
custody and visitation and terminating jurisdiction.
This court presumes a trial court judgment is correct.
(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Appellant
bears the burden of establishing error. Where an appellant does
not establish error, we may dismiss the appeal. (In re Sade C.
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Unlike in a criminal case, we have
no duty to conduct an independent review of the record in a
dependency case. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–
843.)
We review termination orders and exit orders for an abuse
of discretion. (In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.)
In her supplemental letter brief, Mother presents a detailed
account of her efforts to parent her children. She advises she has
since completed parenting classes and 52 anger management
classes and participated in individual therapy as ordered by the
juvenile court. She gave up calling her children on the telephone
because of obstacles erected to the calls by Father. She advises
she wants to “to be a mother” and needs “to be actively involved
3
and included in” their lives. She tells us she has had no access to
her children “aside from one monthly visit; I can’t even talk to
them on the phone. This court order really put a strain on our
relationship and I am asking for a modification.”
Mother has presented no arguable issue calling into
question the juvenile court’s exercise of discretion. Nor does the
record reflect that she has presented her issues, assuming they
are new issues, to the family law court that now exercises
jurisdiction over the final custody order of the juvenile court.
DISPOSITION
We dismiss the appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
GRIMES, J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
4