Filed 9/4/18 In re K.J. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

A.J., mother of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating dependency jurisdiction and setting visitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.3 & 395.)[1] Mother contends (1) the juvenile court erred in terminating dependency jurisdiction while exceptional circumstances existed to continue jurisdiction, (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion by improperly delegating issues related to visitation to the legal guardian, and (3) the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services[2] (Department) failed to file written orders reflecting the juvenile court’s orders at the postpermanency review hearing. Finding no error, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

I. BACKGROUND

This matter involves four children, Ka.J. (born May 2010), Ke.J. (born May 2006), N.J. (born Sept. 2004), and K.J. (born Aug. 2002), collectively referred to as the minors.

Prior Dependency Proceedings

On October 15, 2014, the juvenile court adjudged the minors dependents pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) allegations of domestic violence between mother and the minors’ father, J.J., as well as mother’s untreated mental health issues, her substance abuse issues, and her failure to participate in reunification services.

On July 22, 2015, the juvenile court terminated dependency based on father’s successful completion of his case plan. The court awarded father sole legal and physical custody of the minors and ordered that mother have supervised visits as determined by father and not reside in the home with the minors.

Current Dependency Petition

On September 1, 2015, Child Protective Services (CPS) received a referral alleging a physical altercation between the parents and in the presence of Ka.J. and K.J. during which mother struck the father with a Karaoke machine and attempted to spray him with pepper spray, spraying K.J. in the process. Mother was arrested and the minors were thereafter placed into protective custody.

On September 4, 2015, the Department filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b) (failure to protect) alleging facts consistent with the September 1, 2015, incident, and further alleging that mother was residing in the home in violation of a court order prohibiting her from doing so; the minors were previously adjudged dependents due in part to domestic violence between the parents and mother’s substance abuse and untreated mental health; mother’s failure to engage in reunification services; and father’s failure to protect the minors by allowing mother to return home in violation of the court’s order.

The juvenile court ordered the minors detained on September 15, 2015, and, on October 23, 2015, sustained the allegations in the petitions, adjudging the minors dependents of the juvenile court and ordering reunification services and separate visitation for both parents. The court subsequently approved a nonrelative extended family member placement for the minors.

At the May 6, 2016, six-month review hearing, the court found return of the minors to the parents’ care would create a substantial risk of detriment to the minors’ safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being and continued out-of-home placement. The court also ordered continued reunification services and separate supervised visitation for both parents.

On June 20, 2016, pursuant to the Department’s request, the minors were placed with their maternal grandmother and maternal step-grandfather (hereafter, the maternal grandparents) in Sonoma County.

According to the status review report filed September 29, 2016, mother was incarcerated after being arrested for burglary and assault with a deadly weapon, and having active warrants for a previous domestic violence charge and failure to appear. Mother was on informal probation until August 2021.

The maternal grandmother reported a domestic violence incident between the parents on July 5, 2016, stating mother contacted her and reported, “[Father] beat me.” Mother was reportedly incoherent and difficult to understand. When police arrived, mother refused to speak with them or allow them into her home, claiming she did not need their help. As the officers were leaving, father arrived and informed them mother’s mental health was unstable and she was using drugs.

The minors were reportedly happy, doing well, and not exhibiting any behavioral issues in their placement with the maternal grandparents in Sonoma County. They had a strong, positive attachment to the grandparents but continued to express a desire to return home to mother. They no longer wished to be placed with their father or with both parents together due to their belief that father was “too violent.”

According to the report, the parents’ progress in services during the previous six months was minimal. Despite participating in individual and conjoint counseling, substance abuse services, and psychiatric services, mother continued to demonstrate unsafe and erratic behavior, as evidenced by a positive test for methamphetamine while attending substance abuse treatment, several missed drug tests, failure to participate in outpatient substance abuse treatment as required, engagement in domestic violence with father, and illegal and aggressive behavior of theft and assault with a deadly weapon resulting in her arrest.

The Department opined that the July 5, 2016, domestic violence incident demonstrated neither parent had benefitted from services offered to address domestic violence, the very issue that was the impetus for removal of the minors in both the prior and current dependency proceedings. The Department recommended that reunification services be terminated as to both parents, and the minors continue their out-of-home placement with the maternal grandparents with a permanency goal of guardianship or adoption.

At the 12-month review hearing on October 21, 2016, the court found the minors adoptable, identified adoption as the permanent plan, terminated reunification services to both parents, and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. The court also ordered separate, supervised visitation for both parents.

The selection and implementation report stated that, despite the parents’ failure to visit the minors for several months, the minors had a significant emotional connection with the parents, with whom they frequently requested to be reunified. The Department concluded it would not be in the minors’ best interests to terminate parental rights, given the “strong and positive relationships” between the minors and mother. The maternal grandparents did not wish to participate in a plan of adoption and instead expressed an interest in legal guardianship to maintain current familial relationships. Therefore, the Department recommended continued placement with the maternal grandparents with a permanent plan of legal guardianship.

According to the addendum report filed February 17, 2017, the minors were not generally adoptable as they were part of a large sibling group that should remain intact. The Department again concluded it would not be in the minors’ best interest to terminate parental rights and recommended that the minors remain with the maternal grandparents in a permanent plan of legal guardianship.

The second addendum report filed March 2, 2017, stated the social worker reviewed the case file and the extent of the bond between the minors and the parents. The social worker observed that mother “did not participate in face-to-face contact with the children, even when means were provided for her to do so.” While the minors had frequent telephone contact with mother, “the quality of the contact appeared to be limited.” Mother appeared to continue to have mental health challenges which impacted her telephone contact with the maternal grandparents and the minors. The social worker observed contact between mother and the maternal grandmother during a visit with the maternal grandmother on December 22, 2016. Mother appeared to be frantic and scared and the maternal grandmother had difficulty talking with mother, commenting that mother appeared to be “manic.” In light of these observations, the social worker assessed the contact between the parents and the minors as “minimal,” noting the minors had pre-existing relationships with the parents which the minors desired to maintain, but the parent/child contact “did not appear to be that which promotes security and well being.”

At the selection and implementation hearing on March 3, 2017, all parties submitted to the recommendation of legal guardianship. Mother requested a minimum visitation order. The court ordered a permanent plan of legal guardianship with the maternal grandparents, issued letters of legal guardianship, and ordered supervised visitation for both parents as arranged and directed by the guardians, including selection of the supervisor. The court ordered father’s visits to be a minimum of four times per year, and mother’s visits to be a minimum of one time per month or more frequent if appropriate, with visitation to be supervised through an agency at parents’ cost. The court continued dependency jurisdiction and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.3.

According to the postpermanency review report dated August 9, 2017, the three younger minors had adjusted well to their placement with the maternal grandparents but the eldest minor, K.J., maintained her desire to return home to mother. However, the report detailed instances in which mother acted inappropriately during visits with the minors. For example, on May 6, 2017, mother yelled at, cursed at and hit K.J. while Ka.J. was present. According to K.J., on May 24, 2017, mother was combative and rude and “ ‘kinda got crazy,’ ” and called K.J. a “ ‘bitch,’ ” causing the other minors to cry. Several days later, during a visit at a park involving K.J. and Ka.J. and supervised by mother’s adult friend J., mother yelled at K.J. When J. agreed to take K.J. home, mother got into a verbal fight with J., cursed at J. in the car on the way home, and hit K.J. in the car in the presence of Ka.J. K.J. recorded the incident on her phone and provided the recording to the social worker stating, “ ‘I was scared. I kicked her to protect myself. Mom told me Nana and Papa told her to abort me. I was crying and so scared. Mom had taken out a pocket knife to open some candy, and it scared me that she had it. She said “you’re gonna tell them (Nana and Papa) that I was gonna stab you.” She called me a snitch.’ ” The social worker confirmed the video showed the altercation, during which mother could be heard calling K.J. a “raggedy bitch,” a “fuckin’ raggedy rotten bitch,” a “fucking little brat,” and “a piece of shit,” and saying, “I don’t want you.” The sound of a hit or a slap could also be heard on the video. J. could be heard yelling at mother to stop and that “[Ka.J.] is scared.”

The other minors also confirmed the May 24, 2017, incident. N.J. confirmed mother’s troubling behavior and stated, “I think it is good that mom come less often to visit. Then mom will have to change and work harder.” Ke.J. confirmed the incident as well, stating, “Nothing happened, but I wish mom can be better and not get mad about little things.” Ke.J. also stated that the maternal grandmother supervised telephone contact with mother by putting the phone on speaker because “she doesn’t know what mom will say.” When Ke.J. told mother she wanted to be with the maternal grandmother during a telephone call, mother “ ‘became very “violent” and said “Nana and Papa will die soon. And when they do, don’t come to my door step because my door will not be open.” ’ ” This caused Ke.J. to cry. Mother also said, “ ‘she was not going to “fight” for kids that don’t want to live with her.’ ” Ke.J. stated, “Mom usually ‘goes off’ with Nana while talking on the phone. Nana will go outside. Nana encourages us to hang up with mom when she [‘]goes off.[’] I don’t really want to see her; only if I’m with a safe adult. Mom gets really bad with [K.J.] It’s almost like she’s gonna hurt her. Mom thinks Nana is trying to take her children away. When we were living with mom, we were not cared for, but with Nana we get everything we need. I would like mom to come less than once a month because mom talks negatively. I love her, but she makes promises and doesn’t show up. She makes excuses.”

Ka.J. confirmed the incident on May 24, 2017, stating, “ ‘Mom was messing up the day because she was yelling and not acting good. . . . I felt sad because I didn’t want to get yelled at. Mom was yelling. I would like to see mom later rather than sooner because I don’t want her to make problems for us. Things would be better if mom was happy and did not make us cry.’ ”

Ke.J. told the social worker she had not spoken with mother recently and had been ignoring mother’s calls, adding, “ ‘Mom gets really emotional and she cries and says she misses us.’ ” The maternal grandmother told the social worker she did not have a relationship with mother and added, “I’m so mad that she has put me in this position that I have to care for her children. I love them, but they want to be with her.”

The report stated the minors appeared to have strong relationships with the maternal grandparents, who were committed to the minors’ safety and well-being. It was also noted that the minors had “affection for the mother” and that mother was approved for monthly visitation but did not regularly participate. Mother had not seen the minors in person from May 2016 until May 2017, when she verbally and physically abused K.J. and upset the other minors by her behavior so much so that N.J. refused to visit. Thereafter, the minors stated they did not want to have frequent in-person contact with mother. Nonetheless, the minors reported on August 7, 2017, that they wanted to return to mother while acknowledging mother was not safe.

The Department recommended termination of dependency and modification of mother’s visitation to supervised visits once every three months in a therapeutic setting in order to create a positive environment for the family.

On September 5, 2017, mother filed a request pursuant to section 388 to change the court’s March 3, 2017, order of guardianship with the maternal grandparents and requested that the court terminate the guardianship, remove the minors from the maternal grandmother’s custody, and reopen reunification services with the goal of returning the minors to mother. Mother asserted the minors’ needs were not being met, noting that all the minors had stated their desire to return to mother’s care. She asserted she had two of the minors in her care “for a week with no concerns or issues” and she had been participating in voluntary services despite termination of reunification services by the court. She also stated her belief that Ka.J. was being physically hurt by the other minors with no consequences. Mother stated she filed for divorce from father and had been separated from him since January 2017, had completed two intensive outpatient substance abuse programs, was participating in counseling at WEAVE, and was mentally and financially stable.

Father also filed a request pursuant to section 388 to change the court’s March 3, 2017, order of guardianship and continued dependency and requested the court terminate the guardianship, remove the minors from the maternal grandmother’s custody and move them “back to the Sacramento area,” provide the parents and minors with family therapy and weekly visits, and provide father with additional reunification services.

In an addendum report filed September 14, 2017, the Department reported on the minors’ medical and dental status and addressed concerns related to K.J.’s emotional well-being and visitation. The report stated K.J. was having difficulty dealing with her feelings, had been crying and sleeping often, had lost interest in going out with friends or participating in activities, and wanted to return to mother. K.J. was reportedly pressuring the other minors to say they also wanted to return home. The maternal grandmother frequently asked K.J. whether she was experiencing any suicidal thoughts, and K.J. denied ever wanting to hurt herself.

According to the report, mother completed an unsupervised visit with the minors during the first week of August 2017. The maternal grandmother admitted the minors visited unsupervised with the parents at mother’s house for three days. The minors also confirmed that K.J. and Ka.J. went on a three-day unsupervised visit with the parents that went well. The other two minors did not want to go on the visit, as they had plans with their friends. The maternal grandmother was remorseful of her decision to allow the unsupervised visit, stating she became overwhelmed dealing with K.J.’s emotional difficulties.

The Department maintained a permanent plan of legal guardianship with the maternal grandparents was the most appropriate plan for the minors. Acknowledging the three-day unsupervised visit with the parents that occurred without incident, the Department noted the parents had not consistently participated in supervised contact with the minors. The Department noted the minors were disturbed to the point that they wanted less frequent visits with mother due to mother’s angry outbursts and physical aggression towards K.J. Ke.J. reported that mother frequently called and intimidated the maternal grandmother, causing the maternal grandmother to screen mother’s calls via the voice messaging system. Ke.J. also reported that mother says “hurtful things” and “makes up lies” about the maternal grandmother, and the maternal grandmother was considering ways to limit communication with mother. N.J. reported he would like to go home but he did not feel mother would keep him safe. Given the concerns of the minors, the Department recommended continued out-of-home care with the maternal grandparents in a permanent plan of legal guardianship and termination of the dependency.

At the September 15, 2017, postpermanency review hearing, the court adopted the findings and orders in the postpermanency review report, denied the parents’ respective section 388 motions, terminated dependency and ordered separate visits for both parents, with mother to have a minimum of one visit per month supervised by the guardians or their designee, and father to have a minimum of four visits per year supervised by the guardians or their designee. The court requested the Department to submit new findings and orders to incorporate the visitation order which was not included in the postpermanency review report.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

1. Termination of Dependency Jurisdiction

Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating dependency jurisdiction without considering exceptional circumstances warranting continuance of jurisdiction. The claim lacks merit.

“Following establishment of a legal guardianship, the court may continue jurisdiction over the child as a dependent child of the juvenile court or may terminate its dependency jurisdiction and retain jurisdiction over the child as a ward of the legal guardianship, as authorized by Section 366.4. If, however, a relative of the child is appointed the legal guardian of the child and the child has been placed with the relative for at least six months, the court shall, except if the relative guardian objects, or upon a finding of exceptional circumstances, terminate its dependency jurisdiction and retain jurisdiction over the child as a ward of the guardianship, as authorized by Section 366.4.” (§ 366.3, subd. (a).)

“When a juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a dependent child, it is empowered to make ‘exit orders’ regarding custody and visitation. [Citations.] Such orders become part of any family court proceeding concerning the same child and will remain in effect until they are terminated or modified by the family court. [Citation.]” (In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1122-1123.) In making an exit order, the juvenile court must look to the best interests of the child under all the circumstances. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973.)

A juvenile court’s decision to terminate dependency jurisdiction and to issue exit orders pursuant to section 362.4 is reviewed for abuse of discretion and may not be disturbed unless the court’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. (In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 902.) “ ‘ “When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” ’ [Citations.]” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 319.)

The record does not support mother’s claim that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating dependency jurisdiction. The minors were placed with the maternal grandparents in Sonoma County on June 20, 2016. Mother contends that, from that point on until the court terminated dependency jurisdiction on September 15, 2017, there were exceptional circumstances requiring continuance of the court’s dependency jurisdiction, including friction and tension between mother and the maternal grandmother which included arguments and screening phone calls; a period of noncompliance with the visitation order due to the maternal grandmother’s “willing[ness] to allow a week long unsupervised visit” between the parents and two of the minors; and challenges to visitation due to the geographic distance between mother and the maternal grandmother.

As a preliminary matter, we note that a party claiming error has the burden to support her arguments with analysis and citation to evidence in the appellate record in order to avoid forfeiture of her claim of error on appeal. (People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1159; People v. Sangani (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1135-1136.) Mother asserts her claims in passing with little more than conclusory statements and little analysis of the facts contained in the record, choosing instead to distinguish the facts here from those in In re Grace C. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1470. While it is questionable at best whether mother met her burden, we nonetheless address the merits of her claim and find them lacking.

As demonstrated by the Department’s reports, any difficulties between mother and the maternal grandmother were the result of mother’s own behavior. For example, the September 2016 report noted mother continued to demonstrate unsafe and erratic behavior, testing positive for methamphetamine while attending substance abuse treatment, missing urinalysis tests, failing to participate in court-ordered outpatient substance abuse treatment, engaging in domestic violence with father, and getting arrested for theft and assault with a deadly weapon. According to the February 2017 selection and implementation report, mother had not visited the minors for several months. Yet, the maternal grandmother preferred to participate in a plan of legal guardianship in order to maintain the relationship between the minors and their parents. The March 2, 2017, report stated that although mother had frequent telephone contact with the minors, such contact was of limited quality and mother’s mental health challenges negatively impacted her contact with both the minors and the maternal grandmother.

In conjunction with its March 3, 2017, order for legal guardianship, the court ordered supervised visits for mother at a minimum of one time per month. However, according to the August 9, 2017, report, mother was not regularly participating in monthly visitation despite having not seen the minors in person from May 2016 to May 2017. When she did visit the minors, she often acted inappropriately: yelling at, cursing at and hitting K.J. in the presence of Ka.J. and a supervising adult, and verbally assaulting the supervising adult. She also verbally assaulted the maternal grandmother during telephone calls with the minors. Due to mother’s unpredictable and aggressive behavior, the maternal grandmother supervised telephone contact between the minors and mother by putting mother’s calls on speakerphone. While the maternal grandmother reportedly told the social worker she did not have a relationship with mother and was angry that mother placed her in the position of having to care for the minors, there is nothing in the record to suggest the maternal grandmother attempted to minimize or prevent visitation between mother and the minors.

Mother asserts there was a significant period of noncompliance with the court’s visitation order, as demonstrated by a single incident wherein the maternal grandmother allowed K.J. and Ka.J. to participate in what mother characterized as a week-long unsupervised visit with the parents at mother’s house. We are not persuaded. As the maternal grandmother admitted, and K.J. and Ka.J. confirmed, the two minors visited unsupervised with the parents at mother’s house for three days. The maternal grandmother admitted she allowed the three-day unsupervised visit to occur after she became overwhelmed trying to deal with the emotional difficulties K.J. was experiencing. She also stated she was remorseful for having done so. Other than this apparent anomaly, there is nothing in the record to suggest the maternal grandmother was otherwise noncompliant with the court’s order requiring monthly supervised visits.

Finally, mother asserts there were challenges to visitation due to the geographic distance between her home and the maternal grandmother’s home, claiming her regular visitation only lapsed when the minors were placed out of county. In support of these claims, she cites to the April 2016 status review report and the November 2016 status review report, both of which state that mother attended weekly visits with the minors from May 10, 2016, through May 31, 2016, and was thereafter offered weekly bus passes to travel to visits in Sonoma County. However, the reports also state the parents informed the social worker they preferred to travel by their own vehicle and would do so two times per month but never followed through in visiting the children. Similarly, in July 2016 after approval of extended weekend visits to accommodate the length of travel required, mother stated she was willing to use the bus passes and had relatives in Santa Rosa with whom she could stay. Mother later indicated she had no relatives with whom she could stay. However, while the maternal grandmother offered to pay for mother to spend two nights in a hotel each weekend in order to visit the minors, mother “did not take the grandparents up on this offer.”

The record does not support mother’s claim of exceptional circumstances warranting continuance of dependency jurisdiction. We therefore conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating dependency jurisdiction.

2. Visitation Order

Next, mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by improperly delegating the power to determine the duration of visits to the legal guardian.

“When a legal guardianship is established for a child, the court shall make an order for visitation with the parents unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence the visitation would be detrimental to the physical or emotional well-being of the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(C).)” (In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358; accord In re M.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 269, 274; In re Rebecca S. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313-1314 (Rebecca S.).)

“Where a juvenile court orders visitation, the court shall specify the frequency and duration of visits. [Citation.] The time, place, and manner of visitation may be left to the legal guardians, but the guardians shall not have discretion to decide whether visitation actually occurs. [Citations.]” (In re Grace C., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1478, italics added; accord In re M.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 274; Rebecca S., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1313-1314.)

Citing Rebecca S., mother claims the court’s order failed to specify a minimum duration for the visits and, given that the distance between mother’s home and the maternal grandmother’s home made short visits impractical, the maternal grandmother could essentially determine whether visitation would occur at all. The claim is untenable.

In Rebecca S., the visitation order provided for monitored visits, but left it to the legal guardian’s discretion to determine the frequency, duration, and location of the visits. The appellate court concluded that portion of the visitation order was an abuse of discretion, stating, “The time, place, and manner of visitation may be left to the legal guardian, but leaving the frequency and duration of visits within the legal guardian’s discretion allows the guardian to decide whether visitation actually will occur.” (Rebecca S., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314, italics added.) Rebecca S. is distinguishable.

Here, the court’s September 15, 2017, order continued the existing visitation order which called for separate visitation for each parent, with mother to have a minimum of one visit per month supervised by the guardians or their designee. Unlike Rebecca S., the order here specified the frequency and, implicitly, the location of the visits, leaving to the maternal grandmother’s discretion only the duration of the visits. The order did not give the maternal grandmother discretion to determine whether visitation occurred at all.

It is worth noting that, as the Department aptly states, the juvenile court maintains jurisdiction over the guardianship notwithstanding its termination of dependency jurisdiction. (§§ 366.3, subd. (a), 366.4; In re D.R. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 480, 486-487 [“[E]ven though the juvenile court terminates dependency jurisdiction in a case, the juvenile court still retains jurisdiction over the guardianship and any motions relating to that guardianship may properly be filed in the juvenile court”].) Hence, mother retains the ability to petition the juvenile court in the unlikely event a problem with visitation develops.

The juvenile court’s visitation order did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

3. Preparation of Written Order

Finally, mother contends remand for clarification is required due to the Department’s failure to submit written findings and orders to reflect the court’s September 15, 2017, visitation order.

The Department argues, and we agree, that mother’s claim is moot. During the pendency of this appeal, the juvenile court amended its visitation order, nunc pro tunc, to conform to its September 15, 2017, oral pronouncement of judgment. The amended order states in part as follows: Mother “shall have supervised visitation with the children according to the schedule” “set forth in the visitation order above.” “The visits shall be supervised by . . . Maternal Relative or designated third party shall supervise visits for the mother and the children. Visits shall occur a minimum of once a month. The mother shall be responsible for any costs associated with the visit when the visit is supervised by a third party agency. The parents shall not visit together.” The “visitation order above” reference refers to the court’s original September 15, 2017, minute order which states visitation shall be separate for each parent, with mother to have visits “a minimum of one time per month, supervised, as designated by the guardian,” and father to have visits “a minimum of 4 times per year, supervised, as designated by the guardian.”

This court granted the Department’s motion to augment the record on appeal on March 13, 2018. The amended visitation order reflecting the juvenile court’s September 15, 2017, oral pronouncement of judgment is now part of the appellate record, and remand is therefore unnecessary, rendering mother’s claim moot.

III. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/

HOCH, J.