Filed 5/4/22 In re J.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Archuleta, Judge. Remanded with directions.

Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *

Father R.N. appeals the juvenile court’s custody order and order terminating jurisdiction over J.B., arguing he was found to be J.B.’s second presumed father, but the court’s custody order improperly characterizes him as a biological father. The custody order also does not accurately reflect the visitation he was awarded by the court. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services has filed a letter brief agreeing the custody order must be corrected. We therefore remand with directions to correct the custody order consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

In June 2019, the juvenile court found M.C. to be J.B.’s presumed father, and released J.B. to M.C.’s custody. In October 2019, the court found R.N. to be J.B.’s biological father and second presumed father. However, the minute order for that hearing erroneously stated that R.N. was only a biological father.

At the April 2021 review hearing, counsel and the juvenile court mistakenly believed R.N. was merely J.B.’s biological father.

The court’s minute order terminated jurisdiction and awarded R.N. monitored visits with J.B., two times per month for two hours each visit, either monitored by a mutually agreed upon monitor or a professional monitor paid for by R.N. The final custody order states that R.N. is merely a biological father entitled to monitored visitation, without specifying the visitation memorialized in the court’s minutes. Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We review the juvenile court’s decision to terminate jurisdiction and issue a custody exit order for abuse of discretion. (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300-301.) The juvenile court must define the rights of the parties to visitation. (In re R.R. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1284.)

Here, there is no dispute that R.N. was found to be a presumed father, and that his visitation rights were clearly defined by the court. However, the court’s custody order does not accurately reflect these orders. Therefore, this matter must be remanded for the court to correct its custody order to reflect that R.N. is a presumed father, and that he is entitled to monitored visits with J.B., two times per month for two hours each visit, monitored by a mutually agreed upon monitor or a professional monitor paid for by R.N.

DISPOSITION

This matter is remanded with directions that the juvenile court correct its custody order to reflect that R.N. is a presumed father, and that he is entitled to monitored visits two times per month for two hours each visit, monitored by a mutually agreed upon monitor or a professional monitor paid for by R.N.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON, J.

WILEY, J.