Opinion
B304594 B304843
10-23-2020
In re A.C., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.B. et. al., Defendants and Appellants.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.L. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant L.B. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP03568A-D) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Pete R. Navarro, Judge. Reversed. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.L. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant L.B. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Appellants M.L. (mother) and L.B. (stepfather) previously appealed the juvenile court's order declaring Alejandro C. a presumed father of their oldest daughter (the "first appeal"). While the first appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction. The court entered judgment on January 21, 2020 making a parentage finding declaring Alejandro to be a presumed father, and ordering visitation for him with oldest daughter. Mother and stepfather appealed, challenging the parentage finding as to Alejandro and related visitation order (the "second appeal").
Alejandro C. did not file a respondent's brief in the present appeal, and the Department of Children and Family Services submitted a letter taking no position.
On August 20, 2020, we filed our opinion in the first appeal, reversing the order finding Alejandro to be a presumed father, and remanding the matter with directions to the juvenile court to conduct a hearing to weigh Alejandro's and stepfather's competing claims of presumed fatherhood. (See In re A.C. (Aug. 20, 2020, B299562) [nonpub. opn.].)
The disposition of the prior appeal was: "We reverse the July 18, 2019 order to the extent it found that Alejandro is a third parent under section 7612, subdivision (c). In all other respects, we affirm the order. The matter is remanded with directions that the juvenile court: (1) enter a new order finding that Alejandro is not a third parent under section 7612, subdivision (c); and (2) conduct a new hearing in which the court expressly weighs the competing claims of Alejandro and stepfather as required by section 7612, subdivision (b)."
We now address the second appeal challenging the exit orders. Stepfather and mother argue that the juvenile court's error in finding Alejandro to be a presumed father requires the reversal of that portion of the final custody order concerning Alejandro. We agree. As the first appeal vacated Alejandro's presumed father finding, the exit order declaring him to be a presumed father and awarding him visitation in that capacity must also be vacated.
The "Parentage—Findings and Judgment" order provided that Alejandro. C[.] is declared to be the presumed parent of" [oldest daughter]. The visitation order provided visitation to Alejandro C. "at the discretion of" [oldest daughter]. --------
DISPOSITION
We reverse the January 21, 2020 parentage finding declaring Alejandro C. a presumed father of oldest daughter, and the portion of the January 21, 2020 custody order providing visitation for Alejandro C.
RUBIN, P. J. WE CONCUR:
BAKER, J.
MOOR, J.