Filed 3/1/23 In re Rogelio O. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE In re ROGELIO O. et al., B320698 consolidated with B320696 Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP05309) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGELIO O., Defendant and Appellant. APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Brett Bianco, Judge. Affirmed. Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________ Rogelio O. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s finding that the facts before it did not support application of the sibling exception1 to termination of his parental rights over the youngest of his three children, and its order of a permanent plan of adoption for that child. Father contends that termination of his parental rights will substantially interfere with the relationship between that of his youngest child, Rogelio O. (Roger)2 (born in 2013), and sister Itzel O. (born in 2005), who is seven-and-one- half years older than Roger. Father further argues the juvenile court erred in finding the benefits adoption would provide Roger outweighed the benefits from continuing this sibling relationship. As explained below, we disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father and Lorena E. (Mother) have three children: Marilyn O. (born in 2004), Itzel, and Roger. Mother is not a party to this appeal. As the issue in this appeal centers on the 1 See Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v). Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2The child’s given name is Rogelio, but he refers to himself as Roger as do others, including his family. We accordingly use the name Roger when discussing him. 2 relationship between Roger and Itzel, we focus our description of the facts and procedural history accordingly. A. Prior Dependency History and Referral Leading to Detention Before 2020, the family had multiple prior dependency cases involving domestic violence and alcohol abuse by both Father and Mother. In connection with the last of these matters, Father was awarded sole legal and physical custody of all three children in January 2020. On October 5, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral reciting aspects of the family’s past history with DCFS, stating that Father had been deported to Mexico, that Mother was living separately from the children and unable to care for them, and that one of the relatives who had been caring for the children …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals