Filed 10/5/26 In re A.O. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.O., a Person Coming Under the H053179 & H053550
Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. 17JD024762)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPT. OF
FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

On January 5, 2024, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s
Services (Department) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging the failure of the
mother, S.M. (Mother) and the father, D.O. (Father) to protect and provide support for
their minor child, A.O., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision
(b)(1).1 The Department alleged that a protective custody warrant had been issued
removing A.O. from Father’s care due to A.O. being at substantial risk of serious
physical harm, including: (1) Father being unable to adequately supervise A.O., resulting
in A.O. wandering away into the community without Father’s knowledge on several
occasions; and (2) A.O. being hospitalized for two seizures due to Father’s failure to keep

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
up with A.O.’s doctor’s appointment and refill his anti-seizure medication. The
Department also alleged that Mother’s whereabouts as of the date of the petition were
unknown. On January 9, 2024, the juvenile court ordered that A.O. remain detained and
placed in protective custody.
The juvenile court later ordered that A.O. be removed from Mother’s and Father’s
care, while granting them reunification services. Following a contested twelve-month
hearing, the court did not return A.O. to the parents, but extended reunification services
for an additional six months based on both parents’ substantial progress with their case
plans and the high likelihood that A.O. would be transitioned back to their care.
Subsequently, at the uncontested eighteen-month hearing, the court returned A.O. to
Father’s custody, terminated reunification services, and ordered family maintenance
services for both parents and visitation to Mother.
On November 13, 2025, after Mother filed separate notices of appeal from the
court’s twelve-month and eighteen-month orders,2 the juvenile court terminated
dependency jurisdiction and issued orders granting the parents joint legal custody, and
Father sole physical custody of A.O. with weekly unsupervised visitation to Mother.3
The Department therefore argues that the instant appeals should be dismissed as moot.
For the reasons stated below, we do not dismiss the appeals as moot, but find no
merits to Mother’s claims of error and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Petition and Detention (January 2024)
1. Petition and Allegations

2 We previously granted Mother’s motion that both appeals be considered together
for purposes of briefing, oral argument, and disposition.
3 We grant the Department’s request for judicial notice, filed April 27, 2026, of
the juvenile court’s November 13, 2025 order (filed on December 12, 2025) terminating
jurisdiction and the minute order from the November 13, 2025 hearing.

2
 On January 8, 2024, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging
that A.O., who was 11 years old at the time, came within the juvenile court's jurisdiction
because he had suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm “as
a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or legal guardian to supervise or
protect the child adequately. … [¶] by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or
legal guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing. shelter, or medical
treatment; [and] by the inability of the parent or legal guardian to provide regular care for
the child due to the parent's or legal guardian's mental illness, developmental disability,
or substance abuse.” (See § 300, subd. (b)(1)(A), (C), & (D).) The Department alleged
that on January 4, 2024, it requested, and the juvenile court subsequently granted, a
protective custody warrant to remove A.O. from Father’s custody, on the basis that A.O.
was at substantial risk of harm in Father’s care.4 The Department also alleged that: (1)
on three separate occasions over a 48-hour period between December 30, 2023, and
December 31, 2023, A.O. had wandered away from Father’s care into the community
without Father’s knowledge; and (2) on January 1, 2024, A.O. had been transported to the
hospital after having two seizures and subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine
and amphetamine, for which Father had no explanation. The Department further alleged
that A.O. had been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome and a seizure disorder, and
Father had missed neurology appointments and failed to refill A.O.’s anti-seizure
medication, which resulted in A.O.’s hospitalization on January 1, 2024.
In its report filed prior to the initial detention hearing, the Department indicated
that on December 31, 2023, it had received a report from the San Jose Police Department
indicating concern that Father was unable to adequately supervise and care for A.O. The
officers reported that on December 30, 2023, they responded to a report that a child was

4 The allegations in the petition regarding Father were the same basis for the
Department’s request for a protective custody warrant.

3
wandering in the streets barefoot and unsupervised. They subsequently located A.O.
According to Father, he had been working at a nearby storage facility and A.O. had asked
to use the restroom, but did not return for 20 minutes, at which point Father went to look
for him and found A.O. across the street. Later the same evening, A.O. wandered away
again, and Father was unable to locate him, resulting in Father reporting A.O. as missing
to a nearby fire station. The officers also informed the Department that on December 31,
2023, they responded to another call that A.O. had left his home at 4:30 a.m. and was
walking around in the street barefoot. When the officers spoke with A.O., he stated that
Father had hit him and he did not want to go home; officers then returned A.O. home,
where Father was found asleep.
The Department further stated that on January 1, 2024, it received a report that
A.O. had been taken by ambulance and admitted to the hospital after suffering a seizure
approximately 24 hours following a traffic accident. A.O. subsequently tested positive
for amphetamines and methamphetamines, and was observed to be very sleepy, but
neither A.O. nor Father could provide an explanation for how A.O. may have ingested
either substance. In addition, the emergency room physician treating A.O. reported that
A.O. did not have therapeutic levels of his anticonvulsant medication, which resulted in a
breakthrough seizure. While Father indicated that A.O. had missed one dose, A.O.’s
other physicians indicated that Father had not followed up with multiple medical
appointments with A.O.’s doctor in the past six months and was not consistently refilling
A.O.’s anticonvulsant medication. The Department further noted that during the course
of its investigation, Father had not made himself available to medical staff to discuss
A.O.’s medical needs or provide consent for an MRI.
The Department indicated that due to these incidents, a safety plan had been
created for three family friends to assist Father with providing care for A.O., and a child
and family team meeting was held on January 3, 2024, to discuss the current risk and
safety concerns to A.O. However, after the meeting, Father became uncooperative with

4
the investigation and did not make himself available to consent to A.O.’s medical
treatment, leading to the Department requesting a protective custody warrant on January
4, 2024.
The Department additionally met A.O. in the hospital on January 5, 2024, and
observed bruising on his shins, lower back, and right shoulder, as well as scrapes on his
shoulder. During the interview, A.O. expressed sadness that Father had not come to visit
him in the hospital or call him, and hospital staff indicated they had been calling Father
every hour with no success. A.O. indicated that he had left Father’s care because he
wanted to “get away from him,” but did not share a reason as to why he wanted to do so.
On the same day, the Department spoke to another treating physician who indicated that
A.O.’s most recent EEG was “wildly abnormal.” Furthermore, A.O.’s most recent
behavior of running away, increase in seizure activity due to not taking his medication,
and neurological decompensation, required a higher level of oversight and care.
The Department attempted to speak with Father about the case on January 7, 2024,
but despite Father confirming he would contact the Department, the Department did not
receive any further response. The Department also noted that it had been unable to
interview Mother since her whereabouts and contact information were unknown at the
time. The Department therefore recommended that A.O. remain detained and removed
from Father’s custody into an out-of-home placement.
2. Detention Hearing
An initial detention hearing was held on January 9, 2024. At the hearing, the court
found that a prima facie showing had been made with respect to the allegations in the
petition and ordered that A.O. remain detained and temporarily placed under the
Department’s care, custody, and control.
B. Jurisdictional/Dispositional Orders
An initial jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was scheduled for February 2,
2024. In anticipation of the hearing, the Department filed an initial report on February 1,

5
2024, where it was recommended that the court sustain the petition, adjudge A.O. as a
dependent of the court, have A.O. remain in out-of-home care, and offer reunification
services to Mother and Father. A.O. had been placed in a therapeutic and specialized
foster care home in Contra Costa County.
In the report, the Department indicated that Mother and Father had been involved
in a previous dependency case with A.O. and his maternal half-sister in 2017, after
Mother had left the children with an unknown caregiver who was no longer able to care
for them. Mother’s parental rights to A.O.’s half-sister were subsequently terminated.
Following reunification services, Father received full physical and legal custody of A.O.
with supervised visitation to Mother. Dating back to 2013, Mother and Father had
several prior referrals to the Department for A.O. and his half-siblings, and both had a
history of substance abuse.
According to the Department, Father did not visit A.O. during his hospital stay and
therefore did not see A.O. prior to his transfer out of county to the foster care home. The
Department repeatedly tried to contact Father to discuss the case or set up an interview,
but Father had not followed through on contacting the Department or responding to
requests to address A.O.’s immediate medical, dental, and developmental needs. Father
had also missed 10 out of 14 call-ins for drug testing and four scheduled drug tests, but
tested negative on January 12, 2024, and tested positive for alcohol on January 18, 2024.
The Department indicated that it had been able to contact Mother, who had been
released from jail at the end of 2023 after serving six months consecutively for three
sentences. After being released, Mother began court-ordered inpatient treatment and was
working on maintaining her sobriety, finding housing, and acquiring a job. Mother stated
that she had not seen A.O. since at least two months prior to her incarceration and had
thought her parental rights to A.O. had been terminated. Mother also noted that Father
had a prior substance abuse addiction but was unaware of any relapse and was very
concerned when she found out that A.O. had tested positive for methamphetamine and

6
had a new seizure diagnosis. While Mother believed Father was able to provide for A.O.
based on him having stable employment, housing, and transportation, she indicated that
at this time, she was unsure if Father was capable of managing A.O.’s medical,
behavioral, and other needs. Mother also informed the Department that on January 25,
2024, Father had told her via social media that he intended to enter inpatient treatment for
substance abuse.
Based on the Department’s inability to speak with Father, his prior substance
abuse history, his lack of attempts to contact A.O. since A.O.’s hospitalization, and his
possible entry into inpatient treatment, the Department did not believe Father was willing
or able to make safe care arrangements or provide for a safe environment for A.O. As for
Mother, while the Department acknowledged she had been actively engaged in the case
since she became aware of it on January 25, 2024, she had not seen A.O. for
approximately one year prior. The Department further noted that Mother’s sobriety was
recent, and she still did not have stable housing or employment. In addition, based on
Mother’s history of drug abuse, history of referrals related to A.O., and prior failed
reunification services, the Department did not believe A.O. could be safely placed in her
care.
At the uncontested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on February 2, 2024,
the court declared A.O. as a dependent of the court, ordered that A.O. remain in his out-
of-home placement, and ordered family reunification services to Mother and Father along
with visitation in accordance with their case plans. A six-month review hearing was set
for July 30, 2024.
C. Six-Month Review
On July 19, 2024, the Department filed a report in anticipation of the six-month
review hearing. The Department reported that Mother had been engaged and cooperative
with her assigned social worker. Mother was currently residing in a transitional housing
unit but planned to seek more permanent housing in October 2024; she also intended to

7
seek part-time employment and had recently applied for a job. The Department
additionally reported that Mother had made substantial progress with her case plan,
including completing parent orientation, attending or enrolling in required parenting and
domestic violence courses, participation in mental health counseling and substance
abuse-related treatment, and completing scheduled drug testing from March 2024 through
July 2024, which were all negative for illicit substances.
Apart from a brief period of time while in detox treatment, Mother had regularly
attended her supervised visitation with A.O. during the review period, which consisted of
visits once a week for two hours. Visits initially took place in the child welfare office
and surrounding community, then transitioned to Mother’s residence. The Department
reported that Mother and A.O. appeared to have a close and special bond, and Mother
fully engaged with A.O. during visits, including having activities to engage in, sharing
affection and loving words, working on his reading, and setting boundaries with A.O.
about tablet and device use. The Department further noted that based on Mother’s
appropriate behavior during visits, and her continued sobriety, visits could be stepped
down to monitored visitation starting on July 20, 2024.
With respect to Father, the Department reported that he had also been engaging
and cooperative with his assigned social worker during the review period. Father was
currently residing in an inpatient substance abuse program, where he was completing a
work therapy program; he also reported that there were several employment opportunities
available to him upon his completion of treatment. Father had also made good progress
with his case plan and had enrolled in or completed many required classes, attendance of
substance abuse counseling, enrollment in mental health counseling, and compliance with
the requirements of his inpatient treatment program, including exemplary reviews for his
work therapy position. Although Father was initially not able to attend visitation for 30
days due to the restrictions of his treatment program, he had otherwise regularly attended
supervised visitation with A.O., which consisted of visits once a week for two hours. The

8
Department reported that Father and A.O. were very bonded, typically engaged in
activities together such as sports or other games, and were playful, affectionate and
loving during visits; Father also set appropriate boundaries around A.O.’s tablet and
device use. Similar to Mother, the Department indicated that Father’s visits could be
stepped down to monitored visitation based on his continued appropriateness and
sustained sobriety.
With regards to A.O., the Department reported that his seizures had considerably
reduced in frequency during the reporting period, after regular use of his medications,
and previous dental concerns had been addressed. However, A.O. had several incidents
at school where he left or attempted to leave the classroom, or acted out aggressively,
resulting in his caregivers having to pick him up early. The Department noted that while
A.O. seemed to easily engage with his caregivers and listen to directives, he sometimes
became defiant and acted out with verbal and physical aggression and displayed some
inappropriate boundaries and sexualized behavior. The Department indicated that A.O.’s
current placement, where he received one-on-one supervision and individualized care
from a primary and secondary caretaker, continued to be appropriate for him based on his
high level of needs, which required specialized care and 24-hour supervision.
It was concluded by the Department that while both parents had made
“tremendous” progress on engaging in their case plans and services ordered to address
the concerns that led to A.O.’s removal and detention, it remained unsafe for A.O. to be
returned to the parents’ care based on the early nature of their recovery and high risk of
relapse. The Department noted that both parents had experienced longer periods of
sobriety in the past that resulted in relapses, and both were still in the early stages of their
therapeutic work, which was necessary to help them address trauma and work through
triggers. Further, given A.O.’s high level of needs and care, the Department opined that
caring for him full time would likely induce high stress and possibly trigger a relapse for
either parent; therefore, prematurely returning him home would put A.O. at risk. The

9
Department therefore recommended that A.O. remain in his current out-of-home
placement, and reunification services be continued for both Mother and Father; however,
the Department indicated that if the parents continued with their current progress, there
was a substantial probability of A.O. returning home by early 2025.
At the hearing on July 30, 2024, the court adopted the recommendations of the
Department and continued reunification services for Mother and Father. A twelve-month
review hearing was set for January 21, 2025.
D. Twelve-Month Review
1. Twelve-Month Report
On January 17, 2025, the Department filed a report in anticipation of the twelve-
month hearing. The Department reported that both parents were continuing to make
efforts to address the concerns that led to A.O.’s initial detention and removal, and had
been working consistently with the Department and collaboratively with each other to
implement a step-down visitation model, which included overnight visits, holiday visits,
and exchanges from one parent to another. While the hope had been to return A.O. to his
parents’ care by the twelve-month hearing, the Department noted some recent concerns
and complications that needed to be addressed before A.O. could be returned, including a
proper transition plan for his medical, educational, and developmental needs, Mother
securing more permanent housing, and Father showing more consistent progress towards
maintaining his sobriety.
With respect to Mother, the Department indicated that she had made substantial
progress with her case plan during the review period. Mother still resided in transitional
housing, but was in the process of securing permanent housing through a housing
program, which she hoped to find in the same school district as Father’s residence.
Mother also continued to actively address any pending criminal matters to have them
resolved, and was demonstrating a clear commitment to maintaining her sobriety.
Mother also had completed or was engaging in numerous services as required pursuant to

10
her case plan, including completion of parenting classes, participation in mental health
therapy, consistent negative drug tests, and participation in substance abuse treatment
programs and counseling. As for visitation, Mother had been approved for overnight
visits during the reporting period, which had gone well, and had appropriately managed
A.O.’s behavior during the visits, given him his medication, and provided necessary care
for him. In particular, the Department noted that A.O. had a seizure one morning
following an overnight visit with Mother, a common occurrence with his condition, and
she successfully administered his medication, which allowed him to recover well.
As for Father, the Department indicated that he also continued to make substantial
progress with his case plan during the review period. Father had successfully completed
his inpatient treatment program and had returned home to his former apartment. Father
was also actively working on obtaining consistent employment. In addition, Father had
completed or was engaging in numerous services as required pursuant to his case plan,
including completion of parenting classes, participation in mental health therapy, and
participation in substance abuse treatment programs and counseling. While Father had
completed most of his scheduled drug testing with negative tests, the Department had
recently learned that Father had skipped two scheduled tests, but was unsure of any
explanation as to why. With respect to visitation, Father had also been able to have
overnight visits with A.O., which had gone well, and had appropriately managed A.O.’s
behavior during the visits, given him his medication, and provided necessary care for
him. Both parents had also been able to successfully manage the exchange of A.O.
between their homes on their own. However, after a recent overnight visit with Father,
A.O.’s caretakers reported that A.O. had returned home smelling of marijuana.
In conclusion, while the Department commended both parents on their progress so
far, particularly their ability to work collaboratively in A.O.’s exchanges, the Department
noted that it remained concerned about Mother’s current housing, Father’s recent missed
tests and possible marijuana usage during an overnight visit with A.O., and the need for a

11
more comprehensive transitional plan to ensure all of A.O.’s complex medical,
developmental, and educational needs could be met by both parents. The Department
therefore recommended that A.O. remain in his current out-of-home placement, and
reunification services be continued for both Mother and Father for an additional six
months. However, the Department indicated that once the concerns were alleviated, A.O.
could successfully be returned to the parents in the next reporting period; the Department
further noted that it may even recommend an early return if it felt this was possible prior
to the eighteen-month hearing.
2. Addendum, Twelve-Month Hearing, and Ruling
After Mother indicated she wished to contest the Department’s recommendation
not to return A.O., the court held a contested hearing on March 17, 2025. Prior to the
hearing, the Department filed an addendum indicating that while the parents continued to
remain actively engaged in their case plan services, some recent concerns supported the
Department’s recommendation for continued services before A.O. could be safely
returned. Father reported that on February 1, 2025, he dropped A.O. off to Mother for an
overnight visit. Mother requested A.O. be dropped off at a house she was being paid to
clean. When Father arrived with A.O., he observed several individuals hanging out in the
open garage of the home, and recognized the primary occupant of the home as someone
who used methamphetamines and heroin. Father also suspected Mother may have been
using substances because she would not come to the car and appeared to be under the
influence. After leaving A.O. with Mother, Father texted Mother shortly afterwards
offering to have A.O. stay with him, based on his concerns; Mother responded that she
was not using, but indicated that the primary occupant “does what he does,” suggesting
that he may be using substances. Father noted that after the incident, there was increased
conflict between him and Mother, which had not previously been the case.
When the Department spoke with Mother about the incident, Mother became upset
and stated that she did not want Father to “control” who she could spend time with, and

12
that even though this other person may be using drugs, he was someone she would
always be friends with. Mother also became upset when the Department noted that A.O.
should not be around anyone who was using substances. Mother indicated that the
Department could not tell her where she could take A.O. Mother further stated that she
thought she and Father were “cool”, but they were not anymore.
In addition, the Department noted that while Father had been consistently drug
testing, he recently tested positive for alcohol; Mother had also missed two recent tests.
As a result, the Department indicated that both parents needed to demonstrate ongoing
sobriety, and Mother needed to recognize the dangers of bringing A.O. to an environment
where he could be exposed to drugs, before A.O. could be safely returned.
At the contested hearing on March 17, 2025, Mother argued that there was no risk
of detriment in returning A.O. to her care and ordering family maintenance services.
Mother testified that she had maintained her sobriety for a full year and did not believe
there was a chance of her relapsing, based on her attendance of regular meetings, current
medications, and regular work with a counselor. She also noted that she felt fully
equipped to take care of A.O. and manage his multiple needs. With respect to the
February 1, 2025 incident, Mother explained that the person who Father had raised
concerns about was her former boyfriend, and the house she was cleaning belonged to her
former boyfriend’s elderly grandmother, who was not a drug user. Mother indicated that
when she asked Father to drop A.O. off at the house, her former boyfriend was not there
at the time, and she only realized he was there later when Father dropped A.O. off; she
also testified that she did not see any drugs or paraphernalia in the home or by the open
garage. While Mother acknowledged that her former boyfriend was a former drug user
and had trouble with recovery, she indicated she had not been spending time with him or
around him, and had purposely not been around any of her older friends in order to
ensure she maintained her sobriety.

13
 The Department acknowledged that Mother had made significant progress in
completing her case plan. The Department further noted that the February 1, 2025
incident was concerning because Mother still had a high chance of relapsing, and being
around known drug users could increase that chance. In addition, bringing A.O. around a
place where drugs may be present could result in him accidentally ingesting it, given that
during A.O.’s prior hospitalization, A.O. tested positive for methamphetamine with no
explanation of how he ingested it. The Department also indicated that Mother’s two
recently missed tests were of concern, especially in ensuring that her recovery was stable.
Therefore, the Department maintained its position that a return should wait until both
parents had completed further services and made more progress in their recovery,
particularly given that A.O. had previously been removed from Mother’s care due to her
substance abuse, and the concerns that led to the current removal from Father’s care,
including his possible ingestion of methamphetamine.
After taking the matter under submission, the court issued its ruling on April 10,
2025, adopting the Department’s recommendation for A.O.’s continued removal and
further services to the parents. In making its ruling, the court noted that under section
366.21, subdivision (f), it was required to find by a preponderance of the evidence that
return of the child to the parents’ custody would “create a substantial risk of detriment to
the child’s safety, protection, physical or emotional well-being.” The court found this to
be true, based on the following: “There’s a concern from the Court that this is the second
dependency. And so the Court wants to ensure that we have a lengthier period of …
recovery certainly for his mother, who’s asking for the return today. That, coupled with
the special needs that [A.O.] has, he needs a parent who’s not present only 90 percent, not
only 100 percent but 110 percent. And I feel that [Mother] is close to getting there but
not quite there yet.” The court further noted that there was a substantial probability that
A.O. would be returned home by the eighteen-month hearing, if not sooner, and the
Department should therefore work on a clear transition plan that would allow A.O. to

14
progress and succeed in having his needs met once returned. The court commended the
parents, particularly Mother, for their progress over the court of the case, and told Mother
she was “almost there” and “very very close” to having A.O. returned. The court
concluded that the Department had provided reasonable reunification services, ordered
continued reunification services for the parents, and scheduled an eighteen-month hearing
for June 10, 2025.
On April 10, 2025, Mother appealed the court’s order from the twelve-month
hearing.
E. Eighteen-Month Hearing
On January 17, 2025, the Department filed a report in anticipation of the eighteen-
month hearing. The Department indicated that since the last hearing, Mother had
experienced recent barriers to reunification that limited her ability to care for A.O. on a
more permanent basis, but was supportive of A.O. being returned to Father’s care with
visitation to Mother while she focused on her health. In May 2025, Mother had been
diagnosed with kidney failure and informed the Department she would need to have
surgery in June 2025 to have one of her kidneys removed. Because of the limitations this
would have on her mobility and energy, Mother expressed that she would have difficulty
caring for A.O. at the time, given the level of attention he required. Further, due to her
health issues, Mother’s visitation was reduced, at her request, to supervised visitation
once a week for two hours at the end of April 2025. In addition, on April 28, 2025,
Mother had a confirmed positive drug test for methamphetamine, though her remaining
tests for the same period had been negative and she denied a relapse.
As for Father, the Department indicated that he had made substantial progress with
his case plan and demonstrated he was fully committed to having A.O. back in his care.
The Department stated that Father had: (1) coordinated A.O.’s transition back to Santa
Clara County for school and medical services: (2) obtained full time employment as an
in-home service provider, which would allow him to also provide A.O. with the proper

15
care: and (3) continued to engage in services demonstrating his commitment to sobriety
and prevention of a relapse.
Based on Father’s progress in his plan, as well as changes to Mother’s health, the
Department recommended that A.O. be returned to Father’s care with family
maintenance services. The Department also recommended that Mother’s reunification
services be terminated, and Mother be granted supervised visitation with services to
enhance her visitation. However, the Department opined with continued engagement in
services and improvements in Mother’s health, she may be able to acquire unsupervised
visitation and a shared custody arrangement in the future.
At the hearing on June 10, 2025, Mother submitted on the Department’s
recommendations and report, but noted that this was not her desired outcome at the
eighteen-month point and requested that her substantial progress to date not be
discounted by her single positive drug test in April 2025. However, Mother
acknowledged that she had experienced significant setbacks in her physical health that
put her in a position where she could not take on joint physical custody with Father as she
had hoped. The court adopted the recommendations of the Department and returned A.O.
to Father’s custody, care, and control with family maintenance services, while
terminating Mother’s reunification services and granting her supervised visitation, but
noted that Mother “should be back to unsupervised visits, sounds like, in just a few
weeks.”
On August 6, 2025, Mother appealed the court’s order from the eighteen-month
hearing.
F. Dismissal
On November 13, 2025, after Mother had filed both notices of appeal, the court
held a family maintenance review hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
adopted the Department’s recommendations to terminate dependency jurisdiction and
issue a final judgment with custody orders granting the parents joint legal custody of

16
A.O., and Father sole physical custody of A.O. with weekly unsupervised visitation to
Mother. Mother did not file an appeal from the final judgment and custody orders.
II. DISCUSSION5
A. Mootness6
The Department argues that Mother’s appeal should be dismissed as moot based
on the court’s subsequent dismissal of the dependency case. The Department contends
that because Mother did not appeal the dismissal or the resulting custody orders, there is
no effective relief that this court can grant Mother in the current appeal. Mother claims
that the appeal is not moot because of the possible collateral consequences she may face
in future custody proceedings from the court’s detriment finding at the twelve-month
review hearing; alternatively, she argues that this court should exercise its inherent
discretion to reach the merits of the appeal because the court used an “explicitly
heightened standard” in making its detriment finding that may affect dependency
jurisprudence in the future.
1. Applicable Law
“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.” ’ [Citation.] 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

5 Although Mother filed a separate notice of appeal from the eighteen-month
hearing, her briefing does not raise any claims of error regarding the court’s findings and
order from that hearing. We thus treat the appeal from that order as forfeited and do not
consider it. (See In re Adrian L. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 342, 344, fn. 1 [although notice
of appeal included appeal from order denying section 388 petition, parent forfeited any
claim of error where opening brief presented no argument on that issue].)
6 In addition to raising this issue in their briefing, the Department filed a motion to
dismiss Mother’s appeal on the basis of mootness, which contained the same arguments
as their responsive brief.

17
effect[ive] relief.” ’ [Citation.] 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.” (In re D.P.
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.).)
While confirming that the mootness rule applies to dependency matters, the
California Supreme Court in D.P. clarified that there may be situations where mootness
may not apply. For example, “when a juvenile court’s finding forms the basis for an
order that continues to impact a parent's rights—for instance, by restricting visitation or
custody—that jurisdictional finding remains subject to challenge, even if the juvenile
court has terminated its jurisdiction.” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 275.) In addition, the
court in D.P. noted that even if an appeal is moot, courts may exercise their inherent
discretion to reach the merits of the appeal on a case-by-case basis. (D.P. supra, at p.
282.) Given the unique circumstances of dependency cases, and the higher potential for
mootness problems of such cases on appeal, the court identified several additional factors
for appellate courts to evaluate when deciding whether discretionary review of a moot
case may be warranted outside of those instances. (Id. at pp. 284–286.) In summary, the
court held that “when a parent has demonstrated a specific legal or practical consequence
that will be averted upon reversal, the case is not moot, and merits review is required.
When a parent has not made such a showing, the case is moot, but the court has
discretion to decide the merits nevertheless.” (Id. at p. 283.)
2. We Exercise Our Discretion to Reach the Merits of Mother’s Appeal
In claiming that her appeal is not moot, Mother asserts that the court’s finding at
the twelve-month hearing, namely, that returning A.O. to her custody would create a
substantial risk of detriment, may have collateral consequences in future custody
proceedings. Specifically, Mother claims that because family courts must consider prior
dependency court findings in making custodial determinations, a prior detriment finding
may significantly impact her ability to obtain different custody orders in the future.

18
 Given that the exit orders granted Mother joint legal custody and unsupervised
visitation, we note that the possibility of the detriment finding affecting subsequent
family law proceedings is “highly speculative.” (See In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th
1481, 1489.) Nonetheless, we need not answer this question as we shall exercise our
inherent discretion, pursuant to D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pages 282–286, to reach the
merits of Mother’s appeal, and therefore deny the Department’s motion to dismiss.
B. Twelve-Month Detriment Finding
1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
At the twelve-month review hearing, the court must return the child to the parents’
physical custody unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return “would
create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the child.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) “The standard for showing detriment is
‘a fairly high one. It cannot mean merely that the parent in question is less than ideal …’
[Citation.] Rather, the risk of detriment must be substantial, such that returning a child to
parental custody represents some danger to the child’s physical or emotional well-being.”
(In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.) In making such a determination,
the court must consider the extent to which the parent participated in reunification
services. (Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748.) In addition,
the court must consider whether the parent eliminated the conditions leading to the
child’s removal and whether the child would be safe in the parent’s custody. (See In re
Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141–1142 (Dustin R.).)
We review a finding of detriment for substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior
Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 (Angela S.).) “We do not evaluate the credibility
of witnesses, reweigh the evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw all
reasonable inferences in support of the findings, consider the record most favorably to the
juvenile court's order, and affirm the order if supported by substantial evidence even if

19
other evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th
942, 947.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supported the Court’s Finding of Detriment
Mother argues that the court’s finding that A.O.’s return to her would be
detrimental was not supported by substantial evidence. Mother contends that she had
satisfied every component of her reunification plan, but the Department delayed on
setting up a transition plan to effectuate reunification before the twelve-month hearing.
In addition, Mother claims that the social worker testified at the hearing that A.O. had
completed a 19-day visit with the parents that went well, and the only concern raised was
from Mother being around her former boyfriend, a known drug user, during the February
1, 2025 incident, with no explanation of how this one incident was sufficient to
demonstrate detriment. Further, Mother asserts that the court used an unreasonable
“heightened” standard of her needing to be ready “110 percent,” which did not comport
with the statutory requirement of showing substantial detriment.
In reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s order, we
conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that returning A.O.
to his parents posed a risk of detriment. We acknowledge, as the juvenile court did, that
Mother had made significant progress in maintaining her sobriety, complying with the
terms of her reunification plan, and working to alleviate the concerns that led to A.O.’s
removal. However, Mother testified that she had been dealing with substance abuse
issues for almost 14 years, starting from the age of 21. As Mother acknowledged, the
first dependency case involving A.O., which resulted in Mother’s services being
terminated and Father having sole legal and physical custody, was based in part on
Mother’s substance abuse. These factors, coupled with Mother’s missing two random
drug tests and presence around someone who was a known drug user, provided the basis
for the court to reasonably conclude that Mother still had a high risk of relapsing, thus
creating a detriment to A.O. if he were returned to her. (See In re H.B. (2024) 106

20
Cal.App.5th 219, 242 [“Given father’s decades-long history of substance abuse, and the
fact he was in the early stages of recovery, the juvenile court could reasonably find it
highly probable that father’s four or so months of sobriety did not mean he was no longer
at risk of relapsing”]; In re J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 7 [after father’s “years-long
struggles with drug abuse, his seven months of sobriety did not mean that he was no
longer at risk of relapsing”]; see also In re Nickolas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492,
1506 [“The court may assign such weight to a prior removal order or detriment finding
against a noncustodial parent as it considers appropriate in view of the parent’s and
child’s current circumstances”].)
Further, we do not find that the court’s use of the term “110 percent” reflected its
application of a “heightened” standard that did not comport with the requirements for
showing substantial risk of detriment. The evidence was undisputed that A.O. required a
very high level of supervision due to his unique medical, developmental, and educational
needs; indeed, the basis for his removal was primarily due to a lack of proper supervision
and attention to his medical needs. As the Department indicated, providing this level of
care would be stressful to A.O.’s parents, and could trigger a relapse. Moreover, Mother
herself testified that there were substantial steps she was taking on a regular basis to
ensure she remained sober, including frequent attendance of substance abuse support
meetings, sponsor meetings, and medications. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the
court to conclude that in order for Mother to be fully equipped to care for A.O. to the
extent required and provide him with a safe living environment, she needed to be further
along in maintaining her sobriety and stability. (See Dustin R., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at
p.1141 [noting that in assessing possible detriment, a court must not only look at the
parents’ compliance with their reunification plan, but must also consider the parents’
progress and their capacity to meet the objectives of the plan, namely, remedying the
causes that led to removal].) We therefore find substantial evidence supported the court’s

21
finding that there was a substantial risk of detriment to A.O. if he were to be returned to
his parents at the twelve-month hearing.
C. Reasonableness of Reunification Services
Mother next argues that the court erred in finding that she had been provided
reasonable reunification services at the twelve-month hearing. The Department claims
that because Mother did not raise this issue or challenge the court’s finding in the lower
court, she has forfeited this issue on appeal. On reply, Mother concedes that the issue is
forfeited, yet requests that we exercise our discretion to reach the merits based on the
important constitutional and public interest issues raised by her claim.
Generally, a parent’s failure to object or raise an issue in the lower court forfeits
the right to raise the issue with the appellate court. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54
Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338.) As the Department correctly states, the contested twelve-
month hearing only focused on whether there was a substantial risk of detriment, and
Mother did not argue that the Department failed to provide reasonable services or object
to the court’s finding that the services provided were reasonable. We therefore agree that
Mother has forfeited this issue on appeal.
Moreover, even if we accept Mother’s invitation and exercise our discretion to
reach the merits of Mother’s argument, we conclude that her claim fails on the
merits. “Typically, when a child is removed from a parent, the child and parent are
entitled to 12 months of child welfare services to facilitate family reunification. These
services may be extended to a maximum of 18 months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) If, at the 12-
month hearing, [the Department] does not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it
has provided reasonable services to the parent, family reunification services must be
extended to the end of the 18-month period.” (Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166
Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345 (Amanda H.); see § 366.21, subd. (g)(4).) The evidence of
reasonable services must be “ ‘ “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt” ’ ” (In re Maria
S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039) and “ ‘sufficiently strong to command the

22
unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.’ ” (In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th
296, 306.) We review the juvenile court’s finding of reasonableness of offered services
under the substantial evidence test. (Amanda H., supra, at p. 1346.) “[O]ur sole task on
review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports
the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided or offered” (Angela S.,
supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 762), bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof in the
trial court of clear and convincing evidence. (See In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th
962, 971 (Alvin R.).) Substantial evidence is that which is reasonable, credible and of
solid value. (Ibid.)
Here, Mother claims that the Department did not provide reasonable reunification
services because it did not take the critical steps necessary to return A.O. to the parents’
care, such as implementing a transition plan and timely requesting a reinstatement of
educational and developmental decision-making. Mother argues that the Department had
“months” to take these steps, yet did not do so in a timely manner, which was
compounded by the frequent turnover in assigned social workers, thus delaying
reunification. However, this argument rests on what appears to be an assumption by
Mother that the Department’s plan was to return A.O. by the end of the twelve-month
period, and it failed to take steps to ensure this could happen. Such an assumption
contradicts the Department’s recommendation in the twelve-month report, which was not
for return but for continued removal and services due to the Department’s continued
concerns for A.O.’s wellbeing and stability, including Mother’s lack of permanent
housing at the time, Father’s missed tests in December, and Father’s possible marijuana
usage during an overnight visit with A.O. Further, by the time of the contested twelve-
month hearing, additional concerns arose, as detailed above, from the February 1, 2025
incident, and Mother missing two subsequent scheduled tests. Accordingly, given that
the Department’s recommendation was for return by the eighteen-month review hearing,
not the twelve-month hearing, we find no basis to conclude that the Department was

23
required to have already implemented a transition plan or reinstated the parents’
educational and developmental decision-making by the twelve-month hearing itself. (See
In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547 [“The standard is not whether the services
provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services
were reasonable under the circumstances”].)
Further, Mother fails to acknowledge that the Department took active steps to
transition A.O. towards spending more time with both parents, including a substantial
increase in A.O’s visitation with parents that removed supervision, then allowed A.O. to
stay with both parents overnight on weekends and school breaks. We find that such
steps, and implementation of the increase in visits, constitute substantial evidence that the
Department was making reasonable efforts to support reunification and A.O.’s transition
back to his parents’ care by the eighteen-month hearing. (See Alvin R., supra, 108
Cal.App.4th at p. 972 [noting the importance of visitation to any reunification plan, and
that “visitation must be as frequent as possible” to effectively promote reunification].)
Accordingly, we find substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding at the twelve-
month hearing that the Department had provided the parents with reasonable services.
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s findings and order from the twelve-month hearing are affirmed.

24
 ___________________________________
WILSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________________________
LIE, Acting P. J.

__________________________________________
BROMBERG, J.

In re A.O.; Santa Clara County DFCS v. S.M.
H053179, H053550