In re Z.M. CA2/2

DISCUSSION

I. Father’s Appeal

In his notice of appeal, father appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating jurisdiction as invalid for not ordering “reasonable services to father.” We conclude there was no error because (1) father abandoned his appeal when his appellate counsel filed a brief under In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 that indicated there were no arguable issues on appeal and father declined to file a supplemental brief, and (2) on the merits, dependency jurisdiction may be terminated without offering any further services (§ 364).

II. Mother’s Appeal

Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in awarding joint legal custody because father “based on who he really is” should have been denied the right to make decisions about Z.M.’s upbringing. More specifically, mother contends (1) Dr. Kaser-Boyd’s evaluation indicates that father is unfit to make such decisions, (2) father’s testimony that he is interested in making decisions is “self-serving,” (3) father never completed the sexual counseling he was ordered to undertake, and (4) it will be more difficult for mother to make decisions if she has to do so jointly with father. The Department takes no…