Filed 8/17/26 In re G.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 G.M. et al., Persons B351542
Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County
Court Law. Super. Ct. No.
21CCJP05318A–E)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
T.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County
of Los Angeles, Tara J. Newman, Judge. Reversed, in part, and
dismissed, in part.
John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Courtney Fisher, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Kristin Hallak, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for the children, E.L., Ev.L., and C.L.
Elizabeth E. Solares, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for the child J.M.
Liz Lopez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
the child G.M.
_______________________________
Defendant and appellant T.M. (mother) appeals from the
juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her five
children, G.M., J.M., E.L., Ev. L., and C.L., pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 In her opening brief,
mother contended that because the court’s adoptability findings
for her two oldest children, G.M. and J.L., were not supported by
substantial evidence, the order terminating her parental rights to
them should be reversed.
No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead,
mother, the Department of Children and Family Services (the
Department), and counsel for the children filed a joint application
and stipulation requesting this court to “reverse the juvenile
court’s November 5, 2025, orders terminating mother’s parental
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
2
rights over G.M. and [J.M.] pursuant to section 366.26, and
remand the matter for a new hearing so [the Department] can
address whether the children are likely to be adopted within a
reasonable amount of time.” The parties also request, as to E.L.,
Ev.L., and C.L., that this court, “dismiss mother’s appeal as she
did not raise any issue on appeal regarding these three children.”
And, the parties request that this court “direct that the
remittitur issue forthwith.”
The parties further agree that (1) there is no reasonable
possibility that the public interest will be adversely affected by
the conditional reversal and remand; and (2) the parties’ reasons
for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that
may result from the nullification of a judgment. We agree and
further conclude that the parties’ reasons for requesting the
reversal outweigh the risk that the availability of a stipulated
reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8); see In re Rashad H. (2000)
78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380–382.). We therefore accept the
stipulation.
3
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s November 5, 2025, orders terminating
parental rights over G.M. and J.M. are reversed. The matter is
remanded to the juvenile court with directions to hold a new
section 366.26 hearing as to G.M. and J.M., with the Department
providing updated information regarding whether these two
children are likely to be adopted and the appropriate permanent
plan for these children.
Mother’s appeal with respect to E.L., Ev.L., and C.L. is
dismissed as abandoned.
The remittitur shall issue forthwith.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM (D.), J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
BAKER, J.
4