Modification: In re Christopher L.

In re CHRISTOPHER L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. B305225

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP02800)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division One

Filed November 24, 2020

THE COURT:

In light of the California Supreme Court's November 18, 2020 order that In re S.P. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 963 (In re S.P.) not be officially published, this court's November 2, 2020 opinion in the above-entitled matter, as modified per this court's November 12, 2020 order modifying opinion and denying petition for rehearing, is further modified as follows:

1. On page 17, footnote 5, which discusses In re S.P., is deleted in its entirety.

2. On page 18, the citation to In re S.P. is deleted and replaced with the following citation: (See James F., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 915; In re J.P., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 800.)

3. All other citations to In re S.P. are deleted. For the sake of clarity, these other citations appear on pages 3, 16 (two instances), 19, 25, and 27 (two instances).

Where deleted citations to In re S.P. were part of a string citation, the punctuation in the remaining portion of the citation is adjusted accordingly. For the sake of clarity, these adjustments are:

(a) On page 3, the space and semicolon immediately preceding the deleted citation to In re S.P. are deleted;

(b) On page 16, the space and semicolon immediately preceding each of the two deleted citations to In re S.P. are deleted;

(c) On page 19, the space and semicolon immediately following the deleted citation to In re S.P. are deleted, and the introductory phrase "see, e.g." immediately following the deleted citation to In re S.P. is replaced with a capitalized version of the phrase, "See, e.g.";

(d) On page 25, the space and semicolon immediately preceding the deleted citation to In re S.P. are deleted; and

(e) On page 27, the space and semicolon immediately preceding the first deleted citation to In re S.P. are deleted.

4. At the top of page 18, the quotation marks around the phrase "not on guesswork or speculation, but on the undisputed facts before us" are deleted.

5. On page 19, the punctuation in the first sentence of Discussion section C.1, is adjusted, so that the sentence now reads:

To assess whether an error in dependency proceedings is harmless, some Courts of Appeal have applied a Chapman "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and at least two Supreme Court cases have embraced the Watson more probable than not standard.

6. On page 27, in the last sentence before Discussion section D, the following clause: "we further conclude, based 'not on guesswork or speculation, but on the undisputed facts before us' " is replaced with: we further conclude, based on the undisputed facts

For the sake of clarity, following this modification, that full sentence now reads:

Moreover, even if the more stringent Chapman framework were to apply, we further conclude, based on the undisputed facts and the portions of section 361.5 discussed above, that the errors were also harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

These modifications do not constitute a change in the judgment.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

CHANEY, J.

BENDIX, J.