Filed 7/2/26 In re A.L. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re A.L., a Person Coming B343531
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
19CCJP03597)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County
of Los Angeles, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed, in part, and
dismissed, in part.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn L. Harrison, County Counsel, and Brian Mahler,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
D.C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s continued
placement order at the 12-month review hearing, arguing the
court erred by not returning A.L. (the child) to her custody. She
also challenges the court’s finding that the Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901; Welf. Inst. Code, § 224 et
seq.1) did not apply. We affirm the placement order and dismiss
as moot the challenge to the ICWA finding.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Prior Section 300 Petition on Behalf of Siblings
In June 2019, the juvenile court sustained a section 300
petition on behalf of the child’s older siblings2 alleging that
mother had mental and emotional problems which rendered her
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2 The child’s five older siblings (the siblings) are H.L., born
January 2007; Jo.L., born January 2009; J.L., born March 2013;
and I.L. and D.L., born June 2014.
2
unable to supervise and care for those children and that their
father, J.A. (father), was aware of her issues but failed to protect
them. The court ordered family maintenance services and
terminated jurisdiction in May 2020 after finding the parents in
compliance with their case plan.
B. Adjudication and Disposition
On December 19, 2022, the Department of Children and
Family Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition on
behalf of the child, then 10 months old, and his siblings under
subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (j).
At the March 22, 2023, jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile
court sustained, as amended, allegations that: father sexually
abused then 15-year-old H.L. on multiple occasions and, on at
least one of those occasions, abused her in the presence of her 13-
year-old sister J.L.; father provided H.L. with marijuana and
“miscellaneous items for sexual[ ] abus[e];” and mother failed to
protect the children from father’s conduct. The Department
further alleged that: in 2022, and on one other prior occasion,
father sexually abused an unrelated minor; and he had also
sexually abused J.L., telling her not to disclose the abuse. The
court continued the matter for disposition.
C. Section 342 Petition
On June 9, 2023, the juvenile court sustained a section 342
petition filed on behalf of the child and his siblings, finding that:
mother and father “created a detrimental and endangering home
environment for the children” by failing to properly supervise
them and allowing members of the household to sexually abuse
3
Jo.L.; mother failed to participate and engage in H.L.’s mental
health treatment; and H.L. was recently under the influence of
methamphetamine while in the home. At the combined
disposition hearing on both petitions, the court ordered the child
removed from mother, continued his current suitable placement,
and ordered monitored visitation with mother.3 The court set the
matter for a six-month review hearing.
D. Six-Month Status Review Period
In a November 21, 2023, status review report, a social
worker observed that the child was “full of energy, playful, kind,
curious, and affectionate. [He] continue[d] to progress in meeting
his developmental milestones under the consistent nurturing
care of his [caregivers].” The social worker concluded that the
child had “a secure bond with his [caregivers and was] receptive
to their comforting and soothing and [would] seek them out. [He]
appear[ed] to have adjusted well to his new resource family and
home.”
At the continued January 10, 2024, six-month review
hearing, the juvenile court found mother’s progress
“unsubstantial,” and continued her reunification services.
3 Mother appealed from the jurisdiction and disposition
orders, but, on June 4, 2024, her appellate counsel filed a brief
pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 and, on
July 10, 2024, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned.
4
E. 12-month Status Review Period
On April 29, 2024, the child’s counsel filed an objection to
the Department’s request to begin overnight visits between
mother and the child. At a May 6, 2024, hearing, the juvenile
court overruled the objection and allowed the overnight visits,
but ordered the Department to make unannounced visits during
the overnight visits and to provide further information on
mother’s progress.
On May 16, 2024, the Department filed a status review
report in which it described the concern of the child’s caregivers
about sexually inappropriate behavior amongst siblings and that
the child’s behavior was regressing. The caregivers added that
the child had difficulty regulating his behaviors when he
returned from visits with mother.
The Department also reported that the child was doing well
developmentally, had “a strong attachment with his caregivers,
and his caregivers [had] developed a strong attachment with
[him], so much so that they [had] expressed they want[ed] to
provide permanency to [him].”
The Department recommended that the permanent plan for
the child should be “immediate return to the home of mother
because the child [could] now be safely maintained in the home.”
The Department also recommended family maintenance services.
On July 24, 2024, the juvenile court held the continued 12-
month review hearing.4 The court ordered that H.L., J.L., and
4 In a report prepared on July 18, 2024 (that is, before the
July 24 hearing, but apparently not submitted to the juvenile
court until September 5, 2024, in a last minute information), a
social worker reported that during a session with a child
5
D.L. be returned to mother’s custody. As for I.L. and the child,5
the court, after conferring with counsel, continued the contested
hearing.
F. The Contested 12-Month Review Hearing
1. August 29, 2024, Last Minute Information
In an August 29, 2024, last minute information, the social
worker reported that D.L. continued to receive psychiatric
monitoring and individual therapy. During a home visit on
August 7, 2024, the social worker observed D.L. becoming
increasingly agitated when J.L. refused to let him participate in
her session with a behavioral therapist. D.L. started to have a
behavioral therapist on July 3, 2024, D.L., “became highly
agitated[,] … physically aggressive[,] and hit, kicked[,] and
pushed both [the therapist] and mother. Mother was able to
restrain [D.L.] while [therapy] staff contacted [police] who later
contacted the [Statewide Mental Assessment Response Team
(SMART)]. The child was taken to Olive View and was
transferred to Loma Linda Behavioral Medic[al] Center on
[July 5, 2024]. [On July 8, 2024], the hospital social worker …
[advised] that [D.L.] and an 8-year-old boy had engaged in
appropriate [sic] touching. The hospital investigated the matter
and it was decided to keep the boys apart with adult staff always
at each boy’s side during any interaction. … [D.L.] was
discharged on [July 11,] 2024.”
5 Counsel for Jo.L. requested that his matter be continued to
the date set for the contested hearing so Jo.L., who was in
juvenile detention, could appear and decide whether to contest
the recommended placement, and the juvenile court granted that
request.
6
tantrum, pushed and hit mother, threatened suicide, and then
started to cry when mother asked him if he wanted to return to
the hospital. Mother contacted the police. D.L.’s school also
advised that there had been several incidents during which he
refused to get on the school bus and became verbally and
physically aggressive, requiring either H.L. or mother to take
him to school. During one incident (on the day before the August
29 last minute information was filed), D.L. refused to board the
school bus and, after mother took him to school, D.L. refused to
enter the school, and ran across a major street in front of the
school. As mother and D.L. returned home, D.L. continued to hit
mother, pulled his own hair, and tried to take control of the
steering wheel. After D.L. threatened to kill himself, mother
pulled the car over and called 911. The police arrived and
transported D.L. to a hospital where he was kept overnight for
observation.
2. September 5, 2024, Last Minute Information
In a September 5, 2024, last minute information, the social
worker reported that mother continued to live with H.L., J.L.,
and D.L. Paternal aunt, who lived at the same property as the
family, reported that she had not seen any abuse or neglect by
mother. And, she did not observe any behavioral problems with
H.L. or J.L., but had seen D.L. have tantrums and attempt to hit
mother. She did not, however, see him be physically or verbally
aggressive with other adults or children. The paternal uncle had
also seen D.L. aggressive toward mother and admitted that it
was sometimes necessary to call law enforcement to deal with
him. He had not seen D.L. hurt any other adults or children and
believed mother did her best with a difficult child.
7
Mother had recently completed therapy in mid-July 2024.
She also participated in weekly sessions with the therapist for
J.L. and D.L., as well as all child and family team meetings
regarding the children. In addition, she participated in family
sessions with Jo.L.’s therapist in preparation for his return home
following completion of his service of a term of probation. And,
mother was participating in weekly sessions with the social
worker who provided mental health services for the child.
3. September 5, 2024, Hearing
On September 5, 2024, the juvenile court commenced the
review hearing. The child’s caregiver, M.B., a licensed clinical
psychologist, testified that she had been one of the child’s
caregivers for 16 months, since May 12, 2023. Although the child
had been in her care for over a year, she was not seeking to adopt
him. M.B. began monitoring the child’s visits with mother in
May or June of 2023 and she stopped monitoring them around
April 2024.
While monitoring visits, M.B. observed that mother was
disengaged, using her phone for a significant portion of the visits,
and that H.L. would care for the child instead. Once visits
changed to unmonitored status, M.B. observed that the child
would run off during visits and mother would not follow him.
Further, M.B. needed to prompt mother to change the child’s
diaper. M.B. also noticed changed behaviors in the child when he
returned from visits, including “[a]ggressive behaviors. Throwing
toys. Hitting. Scratching. Sometimes throwing himself on the
ground. Rolling. Crying. Screaming at a high octave.
Difficulties with sleep. … [D]ifficulties falling asleep, staying
8
asleep. Difficulty waking up in the morning. … [H]e would
often indicate that he was hungry.”
When the child returned to the caregiver after one of his
overnight visits with mother and disrobed, M.B. heard him say,
“no [D.L.], no [D.L.], owie friend, no [D.L.], no [D.L]. while
covering his genitals.” M.B. further explained that, since the
child began overnight visits with mother, he had been “showing
more aggressive behaviors … such as … hitting, scratching,
yelling, throwing himself on the floor, … knocking things over
intentionally, picking up his toys [and throwing them across the
room].”
After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court
continued the hearing to October 9, 2024.
4. October 7, 2024, Last Minute Information
In an October 7, 2024, last minute information, the social
worker reported that mother continued weekend visits with I.L.
and the child. On September 15 and 29, 2024, the social worker
made two unannounced visits to mother’s home. Mother and the
children had just returned from the park when the social worker
arrived for the first visit, and the child was sleeping while I.L.
and D.L. were playing. According to mother, there had been no
fighting among the children during the weekend visit and,
“although [D.L.] exhibited some tantrums, he did not attempt any
physical or verbal aggression toward [the child or I.L.].”
During the second visit, the social worker was able to
observe the family for an hour, during which time the child and
J.L. “snuggl[ed] together while watching a video on mother[’s]
phone. [D.L.] started to have a tantrum but left the converted
garage where the family live[d] and went to the main house on
9
the property … [and] did not rejoin the family … .” According to
mother, D.L. was responding positively to his new medication, his
tantrums were less frequent, and he was never aggressive with
the child.
On October 2, 2024, a court-ordered team meeting was held
to develop a safety plan that would enable the child to be
returned to mother’s custody. The social worker described the
primary concerns to be addressed as: (1) “a lapse in services by
Regional Center as his case would need to be transferred to
another Regional Center office and service vendors would need to
be located in the mother’s geographical area”; (2) “sustaining the
progress that [the child had] made”; (3) “consistency and follow
through by mother with the child’s services”; (4) “addressing the
child’s sense of loss as to the caregivers with whom he has been
living over one year”; and (5) “the challenges that will arise for
both [the child] and mother … once he transitions to mother’s
home, including his safety and the establishment of a stable
home environment.” Among the action steps identified to address
these concerns was “developing a plan to include the relatives to
assist with [D.L.] and protect [the child] by having them remove
the other children and/or run interference with [D.L.] who
seem[ed] to respond positively to some of his relatives when [he
had] an episode in which he exhibit[ed] any aggression or threats
to hurt others or himself.”
5. November 8, 2024, Last Minute Information
Following another continuance of the review hearing, the
Department submitted a November 8, 2024, last minute
information which indicated that the plan formulated at the team
meeting for protecting the child from D.L.’s aggressive behaviors
10
may no longer be adequate because D.L.’s mental health needs
required additional support. Moreover, according to the social
worker, the presence of Jo.L. in mother’s home was becoming
disruptive and presented an additional risk to the child. The
social worker advised that mother had a meeting at D.L.’s school
to address “the grave concerns presented by school staff and the
school’s inability to teach [D.L.] due to his aggressive and
unpredictable behavior … .” Mother expressed a desire to place
D.L. in a residential treatment facility. The social worker further
reported that on October 30, 2024, D.L. was hospitalized “after he
threw and broke a laptop at school and hit another student.
Mother was called to pick him up and [he] attempted to run
across the street, hit and pulled mother’s hair, and threatened to
kill himself.” Mother called 911, and D.L. was transported to a
hospital and discharged after five days.
The social worker reported that in late October 2024, Jo.L.
“ran away from home after he was released to mother under
house arrest with an ankle monitor. He removed the ankle
monitor, left the home, but, returned … after two days and
turned himself in at the delinquency court … .” H.L. then
reported that Jo.L. attempted to hit D.L. and “put hands on
mother in a threatening way. Mother stated that [Jo.L.] put his
hands on her shoulders in a joking manner, but acknowledged
that he tried to hit [D.L.].” The social worker concluded that the
“issues with [D.L. and Jo.L.] negatively impact mother[’s] …
ability and resources to ensure a safe home environment for [I.L.
and the child] without additional support or other strategies that
will protect [them].”
11
6. November 22, 2024, Last Minute Information
In a last minute information filed November 22, 2024, the
social worker reported that Jo.L. was arrested on November 10,
2024, and released to mother under house arrest with an ankle
monitor. According to the social worker, he was “now the subject
of a new petition and charge … [and] a new assessment ha[d]
been ordered to address the petition and charge. He [was]
scheduled for a [section] 241.1 joint assessment and hearing on
[December 20, 2024].”
The child continued to visit mother on the weekends. The
Department recommended that I.L. be released to mother but
changed its recommendation as to the child, requesting in lieu of
return that mother be granted an extended visit with him.
7. November 25, 2024, Hearing
At the November 25, 2024, continued hearing, the child’s
counsel argued that the juvenile court should not authorize an
extended visit with mother because there had been no change in
circumstance, there was evidence that Jo.L. was abusing D.L.
and hitting mother, and the child was “the youngest of all these
children and [was] unable to really verbally indicate whether or
not he would be in danger.”
Mother argued that I.L. and the child should be returned to
her custody or, in the alternative, the child should have an
extended visit in her care.
The Department submitted on its recommendation, stating,
“The Department believes mother has done what she needed to
[do] to return [I.L.] home. I believe an extended visit for [the
child] would be appropriate until the next hearing. Submit.”
12
Following argument, the juvenile court found that although
mother was in substantial compliance with her case plan, the
child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned to her care.
The court observed that mother had seven children in her care6
and that Jo.L. had an active juvenile justice case, had been
disruptive in the home, and had placed his hands on mother. The
court also noted D.L.’s continued behavioral issues, which
included aggressive and violent conduct. Although mother and
the Department were trying to find a residential program where
D.L. could be placed, he remained in the home. The court
expressed concern that mother could not adequately supervise
and protect the child in the home given that he was only two
years old and nonverbal. The court therefore continued
reunification services and declined to return the child to mother’s
home or place him on an extended visit until the next hearing.
On January 14, 2025, mother timely filed a notice of appeal.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Denial of Request to Return Child to Home
Mother contends there was no substantial evidence to
support the juvenile court’s finding at the 12-month review
hearing that returning the child to her care would create a
substantial risk of detriment to him. Mother argues that because
she was in substantial compliance with her case plan and had
6 At the time of the hearing, mother had four children in her
care: H.L., J.L., and D.L., who had been previously released to
her, and Jo.L., who had recently been released from juvenile
detention to her custody.
13
done all that had been asked of her, the court should have either
returned the child to her care at the November 2024 review
hearing or approved an extended home visit for him until the
next review hearing.7
1. Legal Principles and Standard of Review
Section 366.21, subdivision (f)(1) provides: “The
permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after
the date the child entered foster care … . At the permanency
hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the
child, which shall include a determination of whether the child
will be returned to the child’s home and, if so, when, within the
time limits of subdivision (a) of [s]ection 361.5. After considering
the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the
return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal
guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal
guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the
safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.
The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that
detriment.”
7 In lieu of a respondent’s brief, the Department filed a letter
brief advising that it was “no longer the proper respondent based
on subsequent recommendations made by [the Department] and
orders made by the juvenile court at the 18-month review
hearing” (fn. omitted) and suggesting that the proper respondent
was the child. We ordered the child’s trial counsel to notify this
court whether the child would be making an appearance but
received no response.
14
Subdivision (f)(2) provides, “Regardless of whether the child
is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall
specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not
returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the
factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be
detrimental.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(2).)
“By authorizing the continued removal of a child from
parental custody based on the risk of either physical detriment or
emotional detriment, sections 366.21 and 366.22 focus on the
child’s well-being at the time of the review hearing rather than
on the initial basis for juvenile court intervention. [Citation.]
Thus, while the court must consider the extent the parent has
cooperated with the services provided and the efforts the parent
has made to correct the problems which gave rise to the
dependency [citation], the decision whether to return the child to
parental custody depends on the effect that action would have on
the physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (In re Joseph
B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 899.) “Hence, the question whether
to return a child to parental custody is not governed solely by
whether the parent has corrected the problem that required court
intervention; rather, the court must consider the effect such
return would have on the child.” (Id. at p. 901.)
“We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for
substantial evidence by considering whether the evidence,
contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court’s finding.”
(L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1034.) “‘We
resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all
legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not
substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court.’” (Ibid.)
15
2. Analysis
Here, the juvenile court considered the entire history of the
case, not just mother’s progress, in reaching its decision not to
return the child to her care. As the court observed, if the child,
who was only two years old and nonverbal, were returned to
mother’s care, he would reside with D.L., who had been
repeatedly violent at home and school, including hitting and
kicking mother, and had also been involved in at least one
incident of inappropriate touching with a younger child while
hospitalized. The child would also reside with Jo.L., who had
new juvenile justice charges pending, was ordered on house
arrest in mother’s home, and had placed his hands on mother.
Further, during the review period, the child displayed aggressive
behavior after visits with mother and made comments suggesting
that D.L. may have hurt him. On this record, we conclude the
juvenile court’s finding that there was a current risk of detriment
to the young, nonverbal child if returned to the home was
supported by substantial evidence.
We also reject mother’s alternative argument that the
juvenile court erred by refusing her request to allow an extended
visit with her until the next hearing. The evidence of D.L. and
Jo.L.’s violence toward mother, the fact that the Department and
mother were trying to find a residential treatment program in
which to place D.L, and the child’s comments suggesting that
D.L. had hurt him supported the court’s decision to await further
information from the Department on the stability and safety of
home before allowing the child to remain in mother’s care there
for any extended period.
16
B. ICWA Challenge
Mother also contends the juvenile court erred by finding
ICWA did not apply because the Department failed to ask known
and available extended family members if the children were or
may be Indian children. She therefore requests “that the no-
ICWA finding be reversed and the matter remanded with
directions that the juvenile court direct [the Department] to
conduct a meaningful inquiry of any and all readily available
relatives about [the child’s] potential American Indian ancestry.”
In its letter brief, the Department maintains that the
ICWA challenge is moot because, at a subsequent hearing on
August 13, 2025, the juvenile court ordered the Department to
interview all known and available extended family members as to
whether the children were or may be Indian children and submit
a written report on the results.
Based on the August 25, 2025, orders provided by the
Department,8 we agree that mother has been granted the relief
she is requesting in her ICWA challenge and that her challenge is
therefore moot. (See In re Baby Girl M. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th
635, 638–639.)
8 On August 22, 2025, we granted the Department’s request
to take judicial notice of two minute orders entered by the trial
court on August 13, 2025.
17
IV. DISPOSITION
The order at the 12-month review hearing denying mother’s
request to return the child to her custody or, in the alternative,
grant her an extended visit with him, is affirmed and her
challenge to the juvenile court’s ICWA finding is dismissed as
moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM (D.), J.
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.
18