Filed 12/14/20 In re E.S. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.S., a Person Coming B304050 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP08208E) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAKHWINDER S., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Affirmed. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________ Lakhwinder S., presumed father of one-year-old E.S., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating dependency jurisdiction with an order granting E.S.’s mother, Luisa A., sole legal and physical custody and limiting Lakhwinder to monitored visitation. Lakhwinder contends the court’s order terminating jurisdiction was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Petition on Behalf of Luisa’s Older Children In December 2018, while Luisa was pregnant with E.S., the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1),1 on behalf of Luisa’s four older children, then between the ages of five and 17. The petition alleged Luisa had mental and emotional problems that rendered her incapable of providing the children regular care and placed them at risk of serious physical harm. The petition also alleged Luisa had created a detrimental and dangerous home environment by allowing Lakhwinder, who was not the father of Luisa’s older children, to live in the home despite his mental and 1 Statutory references are to this code. 2 emotional problems, including self-mutilating behavior, and his alcohol abuse. On December 27, 2018, the juvenile court ordered Lakhwinder to move out of the home and have no contact with Luisa’s children. 2. The Detention of E.S. After E.S. was born in February 2019, a new referral to the Department was generated based on the allegations in the pending petition regarding her half-siblings. When interviewed by a Department social worker on March 4, 2019, Luisa said she had met Lakhwinder in December 2017 while they were both involuntarily hospitalized with psychiatric issues. Shortly after they were released, Luisa had invited Lakhwinder to move into the home she shared with her children. Luisa explained the children were afraid of Lakhwinder because he drank excessively and said he wanted to harm himself. On one occasion Lakhwinder had cut his arm and used his blood to write a “love note” to Luisa. Luisa reported she had been compliant with the court’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals