Filed 10/20/26 In re E.M. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR
In re E.M. et al., B349744
Persons Coming Under the (Los Angeles County
Juvenile Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP01958E-F)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
G.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
George A. Turner, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant
County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Appellant G.M. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s exit orders
terminating jurisdiction over two of her children—E., born in 2020, and M.,
born in 2022—and granting custody to the children’s father. We affirm.
This is mother’s second appeal from juvenile court orders in this case.
In the previous appeal, In re R.A. (July 6, 2026, No. B343316 [nonpub. opn.]),
mother challenged the juvenile court’s failure to make findings when
removing the children from her care as required by section 361, subdivisions
(c) and (e). We agreed with mother that during the January 6, 2025
adjudication hearing, the juvenile court failed to make the required findings.
However, we held that the error was harmless. We found that “[c]lear and
convincing evidence demonstrated a substantial danger to the health and
well-being of the children if they returned to mother’s care, and that there
was no reasonable means by which the children could be protected without
removing them from mother.”
In the instant appeal, mother challenges the juvenile court’s custody
orders, issued in August and September 2025, upon terminating jurisdiction
over E. and M.2 In those orders, the juvenile court granted sole legal and
physical custody of E. and M. to their father, with monitored visitation to
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,
§ 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our
opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case
and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851
[unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision
“does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated section
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Mother states that she is also challenging the exit order pertaining to
R., born in 2009. However, that order was among the January 6, 2025 orders
that were addressed in the previous appeal. We therefore do not address it
here.
2
mother. “‘[T]he juvenile court has broad discretion to make custody [and
visitation] orders when it terminates jurisdiction in a dependency case
(§ 362.4).’ [Citation.] We review the juvenile court’s exit orders for an abuse
of that discretion.” (In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 112–113.)
Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the “juvenile court’s failure to
make … removal findings” at the January 6, 2025 hearing “infected the
orders challenged in this appeal.” As we have already found, the juvenile
court’s error was harmless because there was ample evidence supporting the
children’s removal from mother. Mother offers no additional argument as to
why the custody orders were erroneous. A juvenile court’s orders are
presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively show
error. (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 79.) Mother has not met that
burden here.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s custody orders of August 22, and September 5,
2025 are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
DAUM, J.
We concur:
ZUKIN, P. J. TAMZARIAN, J.
3