Filed 7/20/22 In re T.S. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN In re T.S. et al., Persons B311622 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK24133AB) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VACHESLAV S., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed. Nancy R. Brucker for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County Counsel, and David M. Miller for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________ Vacheslav S., father of now-12-year-old T.S. and eight-year- old Christian S., appeals the juvenile court’s order granting sole physical custody of the children to their mother, Nataliya S., granting joint legal custody to both parents and restricting Vacheslav’s unmonitored in-person visitation to within the United States. On appeal Vacheslav argues the court’s custody and visitation order was not in the best interest of the children and constituted an abuse of discretion. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Sustained Dependency Petition, the First Termination of Jurisdiction and the First Appeal On August 1, 2017 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition to declare T.S. and Christian dependent children of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1),1 after police found a handgun and eight ounces of cocaine in the family home.2 The children were detained from Nataliya and placed with their 1 Statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated. 2 The events leading to the Department’s filing of a dependency petition, Nataliya’s and Vacheslav’s conduct during the pendency of the case and the juvenile court’s initial termination of jurisdiction in October 2018 are set forth in detail in our prior opinion reversing the termination of jurisdiction and remanding for a contested section 364 hearing. (In re T.S. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 503.) 2 maternal grandmother. Family reunification services and monitored visitation were ordered for Nataliya. During the course of its investigation the Department learned Nataliya and T.S. had emigrated to the United States from Russia in 2013, while Nataliya was pregnant with Christian. Christian was born in the United States and had never lived in Russia. The children had never resided with Vacheslav, who still lived in Russia; and, prior to the filing of the dependency petition, Vacheslav had met Christian only three times. Vacheslav’s telephone contact with the children had been sporadic, and he had no contact with them for about a year prior to the petition’s filing. During a September …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals