Filed 8/11/26 In re R.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.L., A Person Coming Under B352369
the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Ct. No. 25CCJP02557B)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EMMANUEL H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Syna N. Dennis, Judge. Affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded.
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 Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
******
Emmanuel H. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s
December 8, 2025 dispositional order concerning his daughter
R.L. Father, the Los Angeles County Department of Children
and Family Services (Department), and R.L. stipulate that the
disposition order as to father should be reversed and the matter
remanded for a new dispositional hearing. We accept the
stipulation, reverse the disposition order, and remand with
directions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Facts
A. The family
Samanta L. (mother) has four children—E.R. (born 2012);
R.L. (born 2014); M.L. (born 2018); and S.C. (born 2024). Only
R.L. is the subject of this appeal. The remaining children are not
parties to this appeal and will be referenced only when relevant.
B. Dependency proceedings
On August 27, 2025, the Department filed a petition on
behalf of R.L. alleging she came within Welfare and Institutions
Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) through (j), based on mother’s
conduct.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
At the initial detention hearing in early September 2025,
the juvenile court found a prima facie case, ordered R.L.
detained, and released her to mother under specified safety
conditions. Father was not then located. Father later
reestablished contact with mother and R.L. in October 2025.
At a hearing on November 3, 2025, the juvenile court found
father to be R.L.’s presumed father. Father sought custody, but
the court declined to release R.L. to him because R.L. did not
know him and had no memory of him.
At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on
December 8, 2025, the juvenile court sustained the petition under
section 300, subdivisions (b), (c), and (j). At disposition, father
argued he was entitled to custody under section 361.2,
subdivision (a). The court declared R.L. (and her siblings)
dependents of the court and stated: “The court is releasing all of
the children to their mother and releasing R.L. to [father].”2
Later in the hearing, however, the court ordered monitored
visitation for father, citing the lack of a parent-child relationship
and R.L.’s expressed concerns.
On December 30, 2025, the Department reported that
father’s live scan results reflected multiple drug-related arrests
and convictions in the preceding four years. The juvenile court’s
minute order for that date stated, “[m]inor is not released to
father,” and ordered monitored visitation for father.
C. Appeal
Father filed a timely appeal.
D. Post-appeal clarification
On July 15, 2026, during a section 364 review hearing, the
2 The minute order for that hearing indicates: “Th[is] Court
orders [R.L.] released to the home of parents.”
3
juvenile court clarified that the December 8, 2025 minute order
incorrectly reflected that R.L. was released home of parents. The
court further ordered family enhancement services for father and
stated R.L. was detained from father.3
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8),
authorizes a stipulated reversal if the reversal will not adversely
affect the rights of nonparties or the public, and if the reasons for
reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from
nullification of the judgment. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78
Cal.App.4th 376, 379–382.)
Those requirements are satisfied here. The stipulated
reversal affects only the parties before us and does not impair the
rights of any nonparty or the public. The reason for the
stipulation is straightforward: the juvenile court’s disposition
order and later minute orders are internally inconsistent, and the
court has since clarified what it intended. A remand will permit
the juvenile court to conduct a new dispositional hearing and
make clear findings and orders based on current circumstances.
That outcome promotes accuracy and judicial economy, and it
does not undermine public trust.
3 We grant the Department’s request for judicial notice of the
order documenting this post-appeal development. (Evid. Code,
§§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
4
DISPOSITION
The December 8, 2025, disposition order as to father is
reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court for a new
dispositional hearing as to father. Pending further order of the
juvenile court, R.L. shall remain detained from father, and father
shall have monitored visitation. The remittitur shall issue
forthwith.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
KUMAR, J.*
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.
* Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.
5