Filed 9/30/26 In re Brandon L. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re BRANDON L. et al., B351156
Persons Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP01432E, F, G
CHILDREN AND FAMILY &H
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
I.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Stephen C. Marpet, Commissioner. Affirmed as
modified.
Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Father I.L. appeals a single aspect of the custody order
entered by the juvenile court on October 24, 2025, upon
termination of its jurisdiction in these dependency proceedings.
Specifically, Father contends the order erroneously includes
insubstantial progress in parenting classes among the several
reasons his visitation with his four children must be monitored.
This inclusion is indicated by an “x” in the box next to the words
“Parenting classes” in section 2.a. of the form JV-206 attached to
and made a part of the order.
Before the order was entered, Father’s counsel represented
to the juvenile court that Father had completed parenting classes
and the court accepted that representation. Accordingly, the court
stated “we can strike the parenting” from the form of order then
under consideration. When the final order nonetheless included
the “x” next to “Parenting classes” in section 2.a. of the JV-206
attachment, Father appealed.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services filed a letter taking no position in the appeal,
asserting it was counsel for Mother, Adriana H., who prepared
the order. Counsel for Mother then filed a letter acknowledging
“Parenting classes” was indicated in error.
Upon our review of the juvenile court’s remarks, and in
view of Mother’s concession, we agree the order should be
modified to eliminate the error Father identifies. (See In re
Maribel T. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 82, 86 [modification on appeal
1 We find this matter appropriate for disposition by a
memorandum opinion in accordance with the California
Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1.
2
is proper where “the written custody order failed to conform to
the juvenile court’s oral order”].)
DISPOSITION
The custody order dated October 24, 2025, is modified to
strike the “x” from the box next to the words “Parenting classes”
in section 2.a. of the form JV-206 attached to and made a part of
the order. The order is otherwise affirmed.
RICHARDSON, J.
WE CONCUR:
LUI, P. J.
CHAVEZ, J.
3