In re M.C. CA2/4

INTRODUCTION

Appellant M.C. (father) appeals an exit order issued under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.41 upon termination of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over father’s son, M. Father contends the juvenile court erred by ordering that he and M. complete conjoint therapy without providing a means for completing that therapy. Respondent Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) disagrees with father’s interpretation of the order, asserting that the court ordered only monitored visitation and cited father’s failure to complete conjoint therapy as the reason the visits would remain monitored, but did not order therapy at all. We agree with DCFS’s interpretation of the order and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Background and previous appeal The underlying facts are described in our previous opinion, In re M.C. (July 22, 2021, No. B308704 [nonpub. opn.]), and we summarize them only briefly here. Eleven-year-old M. came to the attention of DCFS on June 1, 2020, after suffering injuries resulting from discipline by father. M. reported that on various occasions, father punched him, choked him, hit him with a belt and hangers, chased…