In re A.S. CA2/2

Filed 6/18/26 In re A.S. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re A.S., a Person Coming B346045
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 25CCJP00282)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Dismissed.
Benjamin Ekenes, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
M.K. (father) appeals from a dispositional order of the
juvenile court requiring him to submit to 10 random drug and
alcohol tests. As we find the appeal moot, it is dismissed.

COMBINED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
Initial referral
A.S. was born in January 2025. On January 27, 2025, a
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) social worker responded to an immediate response
referral expressing concerns about the infant’s release from the
hospital due to suspicions that the home was unsafe and the
mother was a victim of ongoing domestic violence.
On January 28, 2025, a DCFS representative entered
Lucia S.’s (mother) hospital room and notified her and father that
a hospital hold was being placed on the newborn due to concerns
regarding domestic violence.
Investigation
Mother had visited the medical clinic numerous times.
During visits, mother bore various bruises and scratches that
were consistent with domestic violence. At times, mother
disclosed she was fleeing from domestic violence and needed a
safe haven. Mother would provide no details about who was
abusing her but said she was ready to leave him. Mother would
then change her mind and deny being in danger. Mother
sometimes stated there was domestic violence, but she did not
want to make a report. Mother reported living in a home with a
“bunch of men” and smelled them using marijuana. Mother
reported concerns of food insecurity and unstable housing.
On September 19, 2024, mother admitted being a victim of
domestic violence and agreed to enter the Missionaries of Charity

2
shelter. However, when she returned to the clinic a couple of
weeks later, she did not want to discuss what happened at the
shelter. Shelter officials later reported mother had called father
to the shelter where father and mother then engaged in an
argument. Shelter officials stated they would refuse to accept
mother at the shelter in the future.
A registered nurse at the hospital told the social worker the
staff at the facility was very familiar with mother due to the
frequency of her visits to the facility. Mother had a history of
disclosing domestic violence or hinting at domestic violence by
father, but when questioned, became evasive and vague and
downplayed what she previously disclosed. The nurse could
recall 28 times when mother was treated at the hospital and
domestic violence was in question. A hospital employee
witnessed father verbally assaulting mother.
Mother stated she was not close to her family. When asked
about allegations of sexual abuse in the maternal family, mother
responded, “I don’t want to say anything.” Mother declined the
suggestion to have the baby placed with maternal family. Mother
admitted smoking marijuana up until her second month of
pregnancy but denied use of marijuana since then. Mother
denied a history of drugs or alcohol and denied any history of
mental health concerns.
When asked about domestic violence, mother stated, “We’re
okay now. I don’t want any problems.” When further pressed,
mother declined to continue the interview.
A hospital social worker reported concerns for mother’s
mental health and noted mother’s stories were inconsistent. In
January 2025, mother had reported to the social worker, “There
is some domestic violence but I don’t want to speak about it
because I don’t want to get father in trouble.” Mother had a

3
bruise on her right wrist at the time of the interview. Mother
had been at the hospital frequently and hospital staff had made
extensive efforts to connect mother with domestic violence
services. Mother had been to the hospital 14 times in the last
month. During those visits mother referenced domestic violence
concerns and concerns for her safety once she gave birth, fear of
being discharged to father’s residence and reports of sexual abuse
within mother’s family, explaining a reluctance to seek support
from maternal family.
Emergency documentation dated January 1, 2025, reported
mother presented herself at the hospital with “concern for safety
at home.” Appellant stated that “she currently lives with her
boyfriend and he occasionally strikes her in the setting of
drug/alcohol use.”
Dr. Pickett had provided medical care to mother since the
first trimester of her pregnancy. Dr. Pickett believed mother’s
multiple visits to the hospital were an attempt to avoid violence
at home. The doctor observed mother with a black eye. When he
questioned mother about the condition, mother said, “I don’t
know what you’re talking about,” repositioned her body and
covered her eye with her hand to hide the injury. Mother would
arrive at the “OB triage” around 5:00 p.m. when there was a shift
change, resulting in her being informally admitted and staying
overnight at the hospital. Dr. Pickett said this would occur two
or three times per week. Due to mother’s countless visits to the
facility, there was an “extreme concern for the safety of the child
and mother” if they lived with father. Dr. Pickett stated, “We
believe that if the child is released to mother and they go home
with father, the child is in danger of being injured or will die.”
Father denied engaging in any verbal or physical conflict
with mother. When asked about mother’s injuries, father

4
responded, “I don’t know. Ask her ….” Father denied observing
mother with a black eye. Father stated that maternal
grandmother told father mother has mental issues and had
attempted suicide approximately three to four years earlier.
Father was unaware of other individuals in his home smoking
marijuana, reporting that he rented the master bedroom and
stayed there. Father denied mental health issues or consuming
illegal substances. He did report drinking beer and whiskey
socially but denied abusing alcohol. Father said when he drank,
he would become “jolly” and was “cool with everyone.” Father
denied a prior arrest or criminal record and admitted to smoking
marijuana prior to mother’s pregnancy, stating he did not know
how to roll a joint, but mother would roll the joint for them.
Father denied smoking marijuana since mother became
pregnant.
When the social worker suggested a safety plan in which
mother and the baby would stay at a domestic violence shelter,
father stated there was no need for a safety plan when everything
was fine. When the social worker reminded the parents of
DCFS’s concerns and asked again about the safety plan, mother
asked father, “Are you okay with that? What do you want to do?”
Father replied, “Either we live together otherwise I will call your
mom and you can live with her.” Father then left the room. The
social worker asked mother if she would be willing to go with the
baby and stay with maternal grandmother. Mother replied, “I
plead the fifth.” Mother then stared blankly at the ceiling and
said nothing further to the social worker.

5
Juvenile dependency petition and detention hearing
On January 30, 2025, DCFS filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code1 section 300 juvenile dependency petition on
behalf of A.S. alleging domestic violence between the parents and
that mother had mental and emotional problems. On
February 28, 2025, DCFS filed a first amended dependency
petition adding allegations to the domestic violence counts.
On January 31, 2025, the juvenile court found A.S. was
described by section 300 and ordered the child suitably placed
with monitored visits for the parents.
Jurisdiction and disposition
A.S. was placed with a foster parent. Mother and father
continued to live together.
In a May 6, 2025 last minute information for the court,
DCFS brought to the court’s attention the January 1, 2025 report
in which mother said father occasionally strikes her in the
context of drug and alcohol use. DCFS recommended “in addition
to the recommendations listed in the Addendum Report dated
05/06/2025, the father … also submit to random and on-demand
drug testing.”
On May 6, 2025, the juvenile court dismissed count a-1 but
sustained the remainder of the first amended petition alleging
domestic violence between mother and father and mother’s
history of mental and emotional problems.
For disposition, the juvenile court ordered father to
complete a 52-week domestic violence program, a parenting
program, individual counseling, submit to 10 random and on-
demand drug and alcohol tests, drug and alcohol test upon

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

6
reasonable suspicion, and complete a full drug and alcohol
program if there was a missed or positive test.
Regarding the substance abuse component of father’s case
plan, the court stated, “With regard to the department’s request
for him to do some random tests, the court notes in the
dispositional hearing all evidence comes in. And while the court
did not sustain a count related to drug use there are reports that
he did perpetrate violence while he was under the influence of
alcohol or marijuana. And given the very young age of this baby,
she is only about three months old, the court would like to see
that he is sober and able to safely care for this infant and will
order ten random drug and alcohol tests. If any test is an
unexcused missed or a positive test department may walk the
matter on calendar for further orders.”
On May 7, 2025, father filed a notice of appeal from the
juvenile court’s judgment and orders of May 6, 2025.

PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL
Father’s appeal
Father’s appeal challenged only the juvenile court’s order
requiring him to submit to 10 random and on-demand drug and
alcohol tests. Father argued the order was an abuse of the
juvenile court’s discretion because there was no substantial
evidence that the drug testing was designed to eliminate the
conditions that led to the juvenile court’s finding that the minor
is described under section 300.
DCFS’s first motion to dismiss the appeal
DCFS filed its first motion to dismiss the appeal on
March 17, 2026, arguing father’s appeal should be dismissed
under the disentitlement doctrine because appellant was in
contempt of the order he challenged on appeal. (MacPherson v.

7
MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 [“A party to an action
cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court
in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of
contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this
state.”].) DCFS stated father had refused to submit to any drug
and alcohol tests; therefore, he is prevented from challenging the
order on appeal.
Father opposed the motion by arguing it would be
inappropriate to apply the disentitlement doctrine in this case
and that dismissal without a written opinion would be improper.
DCFS’s second motion to dismiss the appeal
On May 20, 2026, DCFS filed a second motion to dismiss
the appeal and accompanying request for judicial notice.2 DCFS’s
motion claimed father’s appeal is moot because reunification
services have been terminated.
DCFS argued an appeal is moot where the reviewing court
cannot provide the appellant with any effective relief. (In re D.P.
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 277.) “[R]elief is effective when it ‘can
have a practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal
status.’” (Ibid.) While there are some exceptions to this rule,
DCFS argues none are present here. Since the court has
terminated family reunification services, the challenged order no
longer exists. Therefore, DCFS argues, this court cannot provide
father with any effective relief. Because there is no practical

2 The request for judicial notice was to take judicial notice of
the juvenile court’s minute order from the April 7, 2026 12-month
review hearing, where the juvenile court found the parents’
progress with their court-ordered case plans unsubstantial and
terminated family reunification services. The court set a section
366.26 permanency planning hearing for August 4, 2026.
DCFS’s request for judicial notice is granted.

8
reason to review an order that no longer exists, DCFS argues, the
appeal should be dismissed.
On June 4, 2026, father filed an opposition to DCFS’s
second motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, the order
at issue is an important issue capable of repetition yet evading
review. (Citing In re Miguel A. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 389, 392.)

DISCUSSION
“A court is tasked with the duty ‘“to decide actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and
not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,
or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
matter in issue in the case before it.”’” (In re D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 276.) “A case becomes moot when events ‘“render[]
it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of
plaintiff, to grant him any effect[ive] relief.”’” (Ibid.) “For relief
to be ‘effective,’ two requirements must be met. First, the
plaintiff must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm
must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome
the plaintiff seeks.” (Ibid.)
A court has the discretion to hear a moot appeal where (1)
the appeal presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely
to recur; (2) there may be a recurrence of the controversy between
the same parties; and (3) when a material question remains for
the trial court’s determination. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at
p. 282.) In the context of juvenile dependency matters, various
other circumstances may arise causing appellate courts to
“exercise their inherent discretion to decide certain challenges to
juvenile court jurisdictional findings, notwithstanding mootness.”
(Id. at p. 285.)

9
The order father challenges here is a dispositional order
requiring him to submit to 10 random and on-demand drug and
alcohol tests. Since the juvenile court has terminated father’s
reunification services, this court can no longer provide father
with effective relief. There is thus no practical reason for this
court to review the challenged dispositional order.
Father’s argument that the matter before us is an
important issue capable of repetition is not well taken.
Dispositional orders are often challenged and reviewed on appeal
when ripe. (See., e.g., In re S.F. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 696, 724–
726.) We also reject father’s argument that his compliance or
noncompliance with the drug testing order may impact his ability
to file a petition pursuant to section 388 in the future. Any
potential section 388 petition, and the drug testing order’s impact
on such a hypothetical motion, are abstract propositions that
have no bearing on this matter. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at
p. 275.) Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to
exercise our inherent discretion to hear this moot appeal.

DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.

CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.

We concur:

RICHARDSON, J. GOORVITCH, J.

10