Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This is the second appeal by mother G.M. in a Los Angeles County juvenile dependency case arising from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 21CCJP01958E-F, before Judge George A. Turner, Jr. In the prior appeal, In re R.A. (July 6, 2026, No. B343316 [nonpub. opn.]), mother challenged the juvenile court’s failure to make findings required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivisions (c) and (e), when removing the children from her care at the January 6, 2025 adjudication hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed the findings were not made but held the error harmless, finding that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated a substantial danger to the health and well-being of the children if they returned to mother’s care and that there was no reasonable means by which the children could be protected without removing them from mother.
In this appeal, mother—represented by Ernesto Paz Rey under appointment by the Court of Appeal—challenged custody orders issued in August and September 2025 when the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over two of her children, E., born in 2020, and M., born in 2022. The exit orders granted sole legal and physical custody of E. and M. to their father, with monitored visitation to mother. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, as plaintiff and respondent, was represented by County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel Jacklyn K. Louie, and Deputy County Counsel Jessica Buckelew. Mother also stated she was challenging the exit order pertaining to R., born in 2009, but the court declined to address that order because it was among the January 6, 2025 orders resolved in the previous appeal. The court resolved the case by memorandum opinion, declining to recite the factual and procedural background because the opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history.
The Court’s Holding
The court reviewed the exit orders for abuse of discretion, recognizing that the juvenile court has broad discretion to make custody and visitation orders when it terminates jurisdiction in a dependency case under section 362.4. (In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 112–113.) Mother’s sole argument on appeal was that the juvenile court’s failure to make removal findings at the January 6, 2025 hearing infected the orders challenged in this appeal.
The court rejected that argument because it had already determined in the prior appeal that the removal-findings error was harmless, given ample evidence supporting the children’s removal from mother. Mother offered no additional argument as to why the custody orders were erroneous. Because a juvenile court’s orders are presumed to be correct and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 79), mother failed to meet that burden here. The court therefore affirmed the juvenile court’s custody orders of August 22 and September 5, 2025.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court’s custody and visitation exit orders made when terminating dependency jurisdiction are reviewed for abuse of discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4, and the juvenile court has broad discretion in making those orders.
- An earlier failure to make section 361 removal findings did not require reversal of later custody orders where the appellate court had already adjudged that error harmless on the prior appeal.
- Juvenile court orders are presumed correct, and the appellant bears the burden to affirmatively demonstrate error; a single argument tied to a previously resolved issue does not satisfy that burden.
- The court would not revisit the exit order concerning the oldest child, R., because that order had already been addressed in the mother’s earlier appeal.
- The opinion was resolved by unpublished memorandum opinion and is not to be published in the official reports.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a prior appellate determination that a juvenile court’s statutory findings error was harmless can foreclose a later challenge to related exit orders arising from the same dependency proceedings. It also underscores the broad discretion juvenile courts exercise in crafting custody and visitation arrangements when terminating jurisdiction, and the heavy burden appellants face in showing an abuse of that discretion.
The ruling further shows that issues already resolved in an earlier appeal will not be reexamined, and that unpublished memorandum opinions may dispose of dependency appeals without an extensive restatement of facts where the parties are familiar with the record.