In re R.M. CA2/2

BACKGROUND

1. First Appeal This is father’s second appeal from the underlying proceedings. In his first appeal, we held the appeal was moot and, in any event, his arguments as to dependency jurisdiction had no merit. (In re R.M., Jr. (Oct. 27, 2023, B325383 [nonpub opn.]) (first appeal).) Rather than repeat the facts of this case up to the point of father’s first appeal, we incorporate by reference our opinion in B325383. 2. Events Since First Appeal Because father stipulated to the custody order at issue, we provide only a brief summary of the facts and procedural history of the case since father’s first appeal. Throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) struggled to obtain information from father regarding progress with his case plan.

2 Father believed the Department was “unlawfully keeping his son from him” and, therefore, refused to share information with the Department. Son remained in mother’s care throughout the remainder of the proceedings. Son consistently indicated he did not want visits with father, and his visits with father remained suspended. By April 2023, the Department…