ADAMS, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 22CCJP01008B Tiana J. Murillo, Judge. Vacated in part, remanded with directions.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Respondent A.B.
ADAMS, J.
W.M., father of minor L.M., appeals from the juvenile court's August 2023 custody order. 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. In July 2022, the juvenile court sustained a petition and asserted jurisdiction over minor L.M. Dependency jurisdiction was based on father's sexual abuse of L.M. in 2022 and his prior sexual abuse of half sibling, J.M., in 2016. In August 2022, the court declared L.M. a dependent and removed her from her parents' custody. The court ordered the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to provide family reunification services to both parents, unmonitored visitation for mother, and monitored visitation for father. The family received services for the next 12 months. In January 2023, the court returned L.M. to mother's custody and continued monitored visitation for father.
In 2017, L.M. was the subject of a prior dependency petition based on father's sexual abuse of J.M., mother A.B.'s older child from a prior relationship. The court sustained the petition and subsequently awarded sole physical custody of L.M. to mother. The court ordered monitored visitation for father. J.M. is not the subject of this appeal.
In August 2023, the juvenile court determined continued supervision was no longer necessary and terminated dependency jurisdiction. The court awarded the parents joint legal custody and mother sole physical custody. The court ordered continued monitored visitation for father. The court explained the record showed father was "guarded" and had "not gained insight." The court further stated its decision to continue monitored visitation was "based on serious allegations and a body of facts before the court that included that this was not the first time that a child had accused father or rather that there was a child who was on the receiving end of inappropriate sexual behavior by dad. Given that some of dad's statements seem to go to other cases as well where father says that was also a misunderstanding, I think that broadly shows lack of insight, and I believe that is an appropriate basis for continued monitored visitation."
The court continued: "I would suggest that if the parents seek a different custody order at a later time, that it show proof, and you can put this in the [juvenile custody order], that dad do aftercare services for sexual abuse perpetrators, as well that those occur with a trained professional and some proof from that professional that father has gained insight."
A judicial council form juvenile custody order was subsequently signed and filed. In an attachment titled "Reasons for No or Supervised Visitation-Juvenile," boxes were checked indicating that father was ordered to have only supervised visitation with L.M. because he "has not completed" and "has not made substantial progress in the following court-ordered programs: Sexual abuse treatment or awareness program for offenders" and "Other (specify): Sexual abuse program or sexual abuse counseling by a trained professional that can conclude that the father has gained insight from the counseling. Aftercare program re drug/alcohol."
Father now appeals.
DISCUSSION
Father asks this court to direct the juvenile court to correct the juvenile custody order so that it accurately reflects the court's oral pronouncement at the August 2023 hearing. DCFS and mother submitted letter briefs agreeing that the matter should be remanded for correction of the final custody order. "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 the parties that the final juvenile custody order does not reflect the court's oral pronouncement. There was no dispute that father had already completed a sexual abuse awareness program for offenders. Instead, the record indicated the program recommended father complete a sexual abuse aftercare program, and the court, in its oral pronouncement, indicated father's lack of insight warranted the completion of an aftercare program for sexual abuse offenders prior to modification of the juvenile custody order. The final order also incorrectly indicated that the order of monitored visitation was based on father's failure to complete an aftercare program related to drug or alcohol abuse.
We therefore vacate the portion of the juvenile custody order regarding the reasons for supervised visitation and remand the matter for correction. The juvenile court is directed to strike the reference to an aftercare program for drug and alcohol abuse; delete the reference to father not completing or making substantial progress in a sexual abuse treatment or awareness program for offenders; and indicate that father has not completed an aftercare sexual abuse program or sexual abuse counseling by a trained professional that can conclude that the father has gained insight from the program or counseling. We otherwise affirm the juvenile court's order.
DISPOSITION
The portion of the juvenile custody order regarding the reasons for 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.
We concur: EDMON, P. J., HANASONO, J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Comments