In re H.C. CA2/2

DISCUSSION

Father challenges the inclusion of the JV-206 in the custody order because its statement that father was ordered to have “only supervised visitation” conflicts with the court’s ruling that father may have nine hours of unmonitored visitation. Counsel for the Department, mother, and H.C. filed letters stating they take no position on father’s appeal. We agree that the form JV-206 should be stricken in its entirety to adhere to the juvenile court’s oral ruling and the rest of the juvenile custody order granting father some unmonitored visitation. (See In re Maribel T. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 82, 86 [modification is the proper remedy where “the written custody order failed to conform to the juvenile court’s oral order”].)

3

DISPOSITION

The custody order filed April 24, 2025, is modified to strike the checkmark next to the box on the juvenile custody order stating that the juvenile court’s findings and orders are “[c]ontinued on the attached form JV-206” and to omit the attached form JV-206 in its entirety. The custody order is otherwise affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

CHAVEZ, J.

RICHARDSON, J.

4