Filed 6/23/26 In re A.S. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
In re A.S., et al., Persons Coming B346929
Under the Juvenile Law.
(Los Angeles County Super.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 18CCJP05508B-D)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
v.
R.S.,
Defendant and Appellant;
M.T.,
Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Donald A. Buddle, Jr., Judge. Vacated in part,
affirmed in part, and remanded with directions.
Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, father R.S.
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Respondent, mother M.T.
No appearance by Respondent Department of Children and
Family Services.
——————————
R.S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s June 11,
2025 custody order under Welfare and Institutions Code section
362.4.1 We vacate a portion of the order, remand to the trial
court for modification, and otherwise affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In light of the limited and conceded nature of the issue
raised in this appeal, only a brief recitation of the underlying
facts is necessary. Father has three children with M.T. (mother),
all three of whom were the subjects of an earlier dependency case
from 2018 until 2021, which ended with a custody order giving
father primary custody and mother unmonitored weekend visits.
By 2025, when the children were ages 9, 13, and 14, father was
living with his girlfriend, and the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (Department)
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
received a referral concerning physical abuse and substance
abuse by father, among other allegations. The Department filed
a petition in March 2025, and at an initial hearing, the court
ordered the children to be detained from father only, allowing
them to remain in mother’s custody.
In a jurisdiction and disposition report filed in April 2025,
the Department recommended that the children remain in
mother’s custody under Department supervision, with
enhancement services for father, and the court set a six-month
review hearing under section 364. An addendum report filed
May 6, 2025, made the same recommendation, except for the
timing of the next review hearing to assess the need for continued
court and Department supervision, suggesting it should occur
after three months rather than six.
On June 9, 2025, the juvenile court sustained all but one of
the petition allegations. It acknowledged father’s participation in
services, but found that his progress had not been substantial.
The court found that the conditions which had justified
intervention under section 300 no longer existed, and continued
supervision was unnecessary. The court indicated that
jurisdiction would be terminated, but it stayed the termination
pending receipt of a juvenile custody order giving mother joint
legal and sole physical custody over the children, and providing
for monitored visits for father. The custody order was in the
children’s best interests and was to be provided by June 11, 2025.
On June 11, 2025, the juvenile court signed and filed a
Judicial Council form custody order prepared by mother’s
counsel. One of the attachments to the custody order was a
Judicial Council form (form JV-206, titled “Reasons for No or
Supervised Visitation—Juvenile”). Form JV-206 specified that
3
father would have supervised visits with the children, but left
blank the checkboxes under item 2 to specify whether father
either “has not completed” or “has not made substantial progress
in” his court ordered programs. The attachment described the
programs in text added after the check box for “other (specify):”
“On 6/9/2025, the court sustained the following counts against
father: W&I 300(a) - Physical Harm, W&I 300(b) - Failure to
Protect, and W&I 300(j) - Abuse of Sibling. After making removal
findings from father by clear and convincing evidence, the court
terminated jurisdiction. [¶] The court recommended father
enroll in and complete the following: Random and on-demand
drug/alcohol testing (weekly), [Department] approved Domestic
Violence, Parenting (developmentally appropriate), conjoint
counseling with children (if recommended), and Individual
counseling to address case issues including effects of domestic
violence and substance abuse on children, anger management,
effective co-parenting, protective parenting, unaddressed grief,
and coping skills.” Additional pre-printed text at the bottom of
the form states: “Completion of one of the programs above might,
but need not, constitute a significant change of circumstances for
purposes of modifying this final custody order. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, 302(d).)”
Father filed a notice of appeal. After father filed his
opening brief seeking correction of a clerical error in the custody
order, the Department filed a letter stating it was not taking a
position on father’s appeal and would not be filing a respondent’s
brief. Mother’s trial counsel conceded clerical error and
requested appointment of appellate counsel to file a concession
4
letter.2 Mother’s appellate counsel filed a letter brief conceding
the clerical issue and stating she had no opposition to a limited
remand to correct the clerical error. Trial counsel for the oldest
child submitted a letter stating that minor’s and mother’s
positions were aligned and that minor would not be seeking
appointment of appellate counsel.
DISCUSSION
The only relief father seeks on appeal is a remand directing
the juvenile court to correct a clerical error and fully complete the
JV-206 form by checking the appropriate box[es] for item 2a so
that it accurately reflects the court’s oral pronouncement at the
June 9, 2025 hearing.
“Where there is a conflict between the juvenile court’s
statements in the reporter’s transcript and the recitals in the
clerk’s transcript, [the appellate court] presume[s] the reporter’s
transcript is the more accurate.” (In re A.C. (2011) 197
Cal.App.4th 796, 799–800; In re Merrick V. (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 235, 249 [“Conflicts between the reporter’s and
clerk’s transcripts are generally presumed to be clerical in nature
and are resolved in favor of the reporter’s transcript unless the
particular circumstances dictate otherwise”].)
We agree with father that the final juvenile custody order
omits the court’s oral pronouncement that father had not made
2 The letter filed by mother’s trial counsel explained that
her office does not represent parents in cases on appeal, and was
instructed by the California Appellate Project that an appellate
attorney must be appointed to file a concession letter.
5
substantial progress in the enhancement services. For the
written order to correctly reflect the court’s oral pronouncement,
the second box for item 2a on form JV-206 should have been
checked, to specify that the court was ordering supervised
visitation because father had not made substantial progress in
his services.
DISPOSITION
The portion of the June 11, 2025 juvenile custody order
omitting the court’s reason for ordering supervised visitation is
vacated, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for
modification consistent with this opinion. The court’s order is
otherwise affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
BAKER, J.
6