W.S.

DISCUSSION

K.M. contends the trial court erred in issuing the February order because: (1) there was no credible threat of future harm to son; (2) the move-out and property return requirements are not proper subjects for a civil harassment restraining order; and (3) the court improperly allowed son’s counsel to act on K.M.’s behalf at a hearing leading up to the February 17 trial. We cannot reach these contentions. K.M.’s notices of appeal identify a single document as the source of her appeal: the August judgment. We see no basis to construe the very specific notices of appeal as embracing the separately appealable February order. (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 76 [policy of liberally construing a notice of appeal does not apply if the notice is so specific it cannot be read as reaching a judgment or order not mentioned at all]; Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1), (6).) Because our jurisdiction on appeal is limited to the August judgment, we lack jurisdiction to review the February order. (Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 170.) And because K.M. does not properly articulate arguments regarding the August judgment in the argument section of her brief, we apply…