Filed 8/20/26 In re Logan C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 LOGAN C., a Person B351976
Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law. (Los Angeles County
_____________________________
Super. Ct. No.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 24CCJP00958A)
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
V.O.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Tara L. Newman, Judge. Reversed.
Catrina Griffin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Sally J. Son, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Elizabeth H. Lopez for the child Logan C.
******
V.O. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights over her son, Logan C. (born
2023), arguing that the juvenile court failed to make reasonable
efforts to locate Logan’s father, A.R. (father), and notify him of
the pending juvenile dependency proceedings. No interested
party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, mother, the Los Angeles
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department),
and trial counsel for the child filed a joint application and
stipulation for conditional reversal and remand with directions
for the juvenile court to attempt to effectuate proper notice
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 294,
subdivision (f)(7).1
We agree with the parties that the juvenile court erred. A
juvenile court may not terminate one parent’s parental rights
over a child unless the other parent’s rights have also been
properly terminated. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184,
208; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.725(a)(1).) A parent’s parental
rights are not properly terminated unless his statutory and
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
constitutional rights to be notified of the pending dependency
proceedings have been satisfied. (In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679,
688-689.) Where, as here, a parent’s “whereabouts are
unknown,” section 294 requires the Department to exercise
“reasonable diligence” in trying to locate and serve the parent. (§
294, subd. (f)(7).) And where, as here, the Department knows a
parent is in a foreign country but only makes efforts to locate the
parent in the United States, the Department has not exercised
reasoned diligence. (In re J.R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 569, 587-
589 [so holding, as to parent located in El Salvador].) In this
case, the Department knew that father was in Guatemala, but
only searched databases regarding his whereabouts in the United
States. This was deficient.
In light of this clear error and the impediment it imposes to
resolving this matter, the parties agree, and we concur, that (1)
there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties
or the public will be adversely affected by the conditional reversal
and remand; and (2) the reasons of the parties for requesting
reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from
the nullification of judgment and the risk that the availability of
stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial
settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is conditionally
reversed and remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to:
1. Attempt to effectuate proper notice on father
pursuant to section 294, subdivision (f)(7), by ordering the
Department to exercise reasonable diligence to locate father in
Guatemala and serve him with notice of the dependency
proceedings.
3
2. Determine, at a noticed hearing with mother’s
appointed counsel, whether due diligence has been completed to
locate and serve father.
3. Either:
a. Hold a new hearing or hearings as necessary to
remedy the notice error described in this opinion, if father makes
an appearance within a reasonable time after proper notice is
effectuated; or
b. Reinstate its order terminating parental rights,
if father is not located after reasonable diligence to locate him or
if father fails to appear in the proceedings within a reasonable
time after the Department has discharged its obligation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
______________________, P. J.
HOFFSTADT
We concur:
_________________________, J.
BAKER
_________________________, J.
KIM (D.)
4