Filed 10/30/26 In re A.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.C. et al., Persons B351171
Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY No. 25CCJP02883A–B)
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERIKA A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Sally Espinoza, Judge. Dismissed.
Leongah Wheeler, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Bryan Mercke, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Erika A. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court judgment
declaring her children A.C. (born April 2013) and Ay.C. (born
May 2016) dependents of the court.1
******
The juvenile court declared A.C. and Ay.C. dependents of
the court on December 4, 2025, based on mother and Armando
C.’s (father) history of drug and alcohol use. The court removed
the children from the parents’ custody.
On appeal, mother challenges the juvenile court’s finding
that mother’s substance abuse and failure to protect the children
from father’s domestic violence created a detrimental home
environment or placed the children at risk of serious harm.
Mother further argues the court erred in removing the children
from her care because reasonable efforts had not been made to
prevent such removal.
At the six-month status review hearing, the juvenile court
returned the children to parental custody and continued the
matter for a further review hearing.2
1 Mother’s older child, Christian, reached the age of majority
about a week before the initial hearing on September 29, 2025.
Christian is not a subject of this proceeding but is mentioned as
necessary.
2 The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services’ (DCFS) motion for judicial notice of
postjudgment evidence, filed concurrently with its respondents’
2
Because mother’s claim regarding the jurisdictional finding
is nonjusticiable, and there is no effective relief this court can
provide her, we dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
I. The family
The family consists of mother, father, A.C., Ay.C. and
Christian. Family friend Jorge U. also lived with the family and
provided help around the home.
The family had five prior referrals to DCFS. In a May 2015
referral, the reporting party alleged mother and her husband
drank, fought, and used drugs around the family home. The
reporting party observed mother hit a child’s face and said the
children were being abused. The referral was closed as
unfounded.
In July 2023, the reporting party observed Ay.C. to have
scratch marks or rug burns on her back. When asked, Ay.C. said
she caused the injuries to herself. Mother called the school to say
Ay.C. was injured at school, but the reporting party denied Ay.C.
was hurt at school. Ay.C. said she did not tell mother about the
injury because “sometimes mom gets mad.” The referral was
closed as inconclusive.
In two July 2024 referrals, A.C. disclosed that father was
drunk, threw something, and broke the television. A.C. told the
reporting party that mother held a knife and a broomstick as
father approached her and told father, “I know you’ll try to hit
brief in this matter, is hereby granted. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36
Cal.4th 664, 676 [appellate court may consider postjudgment
evidence in the context of a request to dismiss a juvenile
dependency appeal].)
3
me.” Mother told A.C. to hide in her room, and A.C. heard
fighting through the door. A.C. was sad and scared. She wanted
to help mother fight father. The referral was closed as
inconclusive.
In an April 2025 referral, Ay.C. disclosed that mother and
father got into arguments and mother hit her. Ay.C. was
observed to have a bruise the size of a coffee cup lid on her arm,
and initially said mother caused it, then said she was not sure
how she received the bruise. The referral was closed as
inconclusive.
II. Current investigation
In August 2025, DCFS received a referral alleging ongoing
concerns regarding A.C., who had expressed suicidal ideation,
writing she wanted to die, her family hated her and did not care
about her. Her writing included gun and knife emojis. The
reporting party conducted a risk assessment, and concluded the
risk was “low,” as A.C. denied having a plan or means to harm
herself. A.C. reported that her parents drink heavily and she
hides alcohol from her father. A.C. further reported when father
drinks, her parents argue more. Mother and father would often
verbally argue, and mother would lock her door. A.C. was scared
and would “shake[]” in fear. The reporting party said mother
knew about A.C.’s suicidal ideation yet denied mental health
services for the child.
A social worker interviewed A.C., who said mother and
father drink, and when they drink, they argue. A.C. reported
father visited the home often. The drinking and arguing scared
A.C., but she denied the parents ever hit one another. Mother
sent A.C. a text message saying, “Fuck am drunk and high??”
4
Another text message from mother said, “Am drunk again ups
sorry.” Christian and Ay.C. responded telling mother it was ok.
A.C. admitted writing she wanted to die but said she did
not really want to die and did not have a plan. A.C. was sad
partly because the family did not do fun things anymore, instead
mother just sat locked in her bedroom all day. A.C. took
medicine for epilepsy.
Mother denied there was arguing or fighting in the home
and that father lived in the home. Mother said she lived with
Jorge, Christian, the two children, and other tenants. Mother
admitted to previous use of methamphetamine but denied she
currently used. Mother also denied use of alcohol but admitted
smoking marijuana, though only when the children were asleep
or at school. Mother shared that Ay.C. was diagnosed with
autism and had mild epilepsy. Mother was aware of A.C.’s
suicidal ideation and wanted the child to receive services.
Mother admitted she sometimes needs “alone time,” so she
goes to her room and locks the door. Mother said her friend Jorge
cared for the children when she needed to rest. Mother denied
having contact with father and denied the children had contact
with father.
In a subsequent interview, mother was observed to be
sweating profusely, was restless and paced around the room. She
left to go to her bedroom to lie down at the end of the interview
because she was not feeling well. The social worker suspected
mother was using methamphetamine due to her condition and
behavior.
Christian denied anyone in the home used drugs or alcohol
or argued. Christian said mother sometimes smoked marijuana
5
but did not smoke in the children’s presence. Christian denied
having contact with father.
Ay.C. denied seeing anyone argue, drink alcohol, or use
drugs in the home. Ay.C. said mother frequently yelled. She
denied contact with father.
Jorge told the social worker he had lived in the home for
years and provided help around the home. He denied mother
used drugs and denied seeing mother drink around the children.
Jorge said father had not been in the home in over a year.
In September 2025, the juvenile court authorized a warrant
to remove the children from the parents.
III. Petition and initial hearing
DCFS filed a petition on behalf of the children pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), in
September 2025.3 The petition alleged mother had a history of
substance abuse and on numerous occasions was under the
influence of alcohol and marijuana while the children were under
mother’s care and supervision, putting the children at risk of
harm. The petition further alleged father is a current abuser of
alcohol, rendering him incapable of providing care and
supervision for the children, and that father’s substance abuse
and mother’s failure to protect the children put the children at
risk of harm.
The initial hearing took place on September 29, 2025. The
juvenile court detained the children from the parents pending the
adjudication hearing, noting statements from A.C. regarding
3 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
6
alcohol use and fights between mother and father. The court
found DCFS had made reasonable efforts to prevent detention.
The court ordered monitored visits for mother. DCFS was
ordered to provide a drug and alcohol testing referral for mother.
IV. Continued investigation
Pending adjudication, the children were placed with an
adult half-sibling, E.A.
A multidisciplinary assessment team (MAT) assessed A.C.
and concluded she had some impairment in her personal and
social functioning. The team recommended ongoing mental
health services, as A.C. expressed she sometimes felt sadness
that was not manageable and made remarks to the caregiver
such as wanting to jump out of a window without obvious
triggers.
The MAT also concluded Ay.C. would benefit from ongoing
mental health services due to impairment in personal and social
functioning. The team further recommended Ay.C. receive an
assessment through the Regional Center due to her below-age
development.
A.C. told the social worker the last time she saw father was
a month or two earlier. She saw father approximately once per
week, and saw him drunk approximately once per week. When
father drank, he yelled and slammed doors. Mother told A.C. to
hide alcohol from father. A.C. said mother drank and smoked.
A.C. denied mother acted differently when she drank or smoked.
Christian would check on mother when she went in her room to
drink or smoke.
Ay.C. said mother drank and smoked a little bit, but she
smoked in her room. Ay.C. denied mother acted differently when
she smoked but noted she came out of her room hungry and
7
Christian would cook for her. Ay.C. said she had seen father
drink beer often, and he acted differently when he drank, but
“only if my mom makes him angry and he yells.” Ay.C. said she
wanted to continue living with her adult sibling. She said she did
not get spanked by the sibling. When the social worker followed
up and asked Ay.C. if mother spanked her, she denied any
spanking and said mother just yelled at her. However, Ay.C. said
she did not feel safe with mother.
Mother told the social worker she had anxiety and was in
therapy. Mother said she could go for two weeks without using
marijuana, but when she used it, it helped with her anxiety.
Mother previously smoked eight “blunts” per day, either in the
garage or outside. Mother then tried to decrease her marijuana
use to only smoking three “blunts” per day. Mother denied
knowing father’s address and said he had not visited the children
since DCFS’s involvement.
The social worker referred mother to drug testing, but
mother missed several tests. When asked why she missed the
tests, mother said she did not know. She said there was “some
kind of a block” but she could not figure it out. Mother did not
know what would help her to test.
During a child and family team (CFT) meeting on
November 12, 2025, mother agreed to a plan to test. Mother’s
roommate would remind mother and bring her to the testing site.
During the meeting, mother minimized her marijuana and
alcohol use. After the meeting, mother told the social worker she
had submitted to a drug test, and the test was positive for
marijuana at 1500 ng/ml.
Mother admitted to domestic violence with three of her past
partners. Mother said though she previously used physical
8
discipline with the children, she stopped when Christian was 11
years old. Mother was enrolled in individual counseling and
parenting classes. The social worker recommended mother enroll
in an outpatient drug program. Mother reported having called a
program to inquire about enrollment.
Mother agreed to family preservation assessment services
but failed to attend the scheduled appointment.
The caregiver was concerned about mother’s supervision of
the children, reporting mother spends much time in her room and
leaves other people to care for the children, including the 18-year-
old sibling. The caregiver believed mother would benefit from an
anger management course and mental health services. The
caregiver reported father drinks alcohol daily and, prior to DCFS
involvement, lived with mother.
Father told the social worker he had not seen the children
in years and had not seen mother in about three years. He
denied mother used alcohol or marijuana and denied that he
drank alcohol. Father denied a history of domestic violence with
mother, stating they had only one argument but there was no
yelling or fighting.
DCFS observed mother was resistant to services and was
not truthful about having contact with father based on prior
referrals and the children’s disclosures. Mother showed a lack of
responsibility for her conduct, and while at times she agreed to
recommended services, she failed to follow through. DCFS
recommended sustaining the petition as pled, removing the
children from the parents, and providing reunification services.
V. Combined adjudication and disposition hearing
The adjudication and disposition hearing took place on
December 4, 2025.
9
Counsel for A.C. asked the court to sustain the petition,
noting the amount of marijuana mother smoked required
Christian to care for the children daily. Counsel argued both
parents were under the influence of alcohol in the home, creating
a risk of harm to A.C. Counsel for Ay.C. similarly asked that the
petition be sustained due to the children’s statements, the long
history of referrals, and mother’s numerous missed tests. Ay.C.
asked to be suitably placed with the caregiver.
Mother asked that the counts pertaining to her be
dismissed based on a lack of risk to the children. Counsel argued
mother’s behavior did not change when she used substances, and
the older sibling and a family friend were in the home to help
care for the children when mother used substances.
The juvenile court sustained the petition. The court
credited the children’s statements that mother and father drank
in the home, that A.C. had to hide alcohol from father, and
mother’s admissions as to the excessiveness of her marijuana use,
among other things. The court found clear and convincing
evidence there was a substantial danger to the health and well-
being of the children and there were no reasonable means to
protect the children without removing them from the physical
custody of their parents. The court further found DCFS made
reasonable efforts to prevent removal and removed the children
from parental custody.
VI. Postjudgment events
At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court
returned the children to parental custody and continued the
matter for a further review hearing.
10
DISCUSSION
Mother makes two arguments on appeal: first, mother
claims there was insufficient evidence that mother’s substance
abuse and failure to protect the children from father’s domestic
violence placed the children at risk of harm; and second, mother
contends the court erred in finding reasonable efforts had been
made to prevent removal of the children from mother’s custody.
Mother’s first contention is nonjusticiable, as mother has
not challenged the juvenile court’s findings that father’s
substance abuse, and mother’s failure to protect the children
from father’s substance abuse, placed the children at risk of
harm. Mother’s second contention is moot, as the children have
since been returned to mother’s custody. As we cannot grant
mother any effective relief, the appeal is dismissed.
I. 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.”’” (In re D.P. (2023) 14
Cal.5th 266, 276.) A case is 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
11
the same parties, or (3) 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 jurisdiction to decide certain challenges
notwithstanding mootness. (Id. at p. 285.) For example,
appellate courts may consider moot issues where the challenged
jurisdictional finding “could be prejudicial to the appellant or
could potentially impact the current or future dependency
proceedings,’ or ‘“could have other consequences for the appellant
beyond jurisdiction.”’” (Id. at p. 285.) Discretionary review may
also be appropriate where the jurisdictional finding is “based on
particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct,” or where the
case became moot due to prompt compliance by the parents. (Id.
at pp. 285–286.)
II. Mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings is
nonjusticiable
“‘[D]ependency jurisdiction attaches to a child, not to his or
her parent.’” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.) This
means that “‘“[a]s long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional
finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate.”’”
(Ibid.) “‘“Thus, where jurisdictional findings have been made as
to both parents but only one parent brings a challenge, the
appeal may be rendered moot.”’” (Ibid.)
Here, mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
findings that mother’s substance abuse and failure to protect the
children from father’s domestic violence placed the children at
serious risk of harm. However, mother does not challenge the
finding that father’s substance abuse placed the children at risk
of harm. Further, she fails to challenge the court’s finding that
12
mother’s failure to protect the children from father’s substance
abuse placed the children at risk of harm. Because jurisdiction
would attach to the children regardless of the outcome of
mother’s challenges, her jurisdictional challenge is nonjusticiable.
(In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.) Even if mother were to
prevail on appeal, the juvenile court will continue to have
jurisdiction over the children due to father’s substance abuse and
mother’s failure to protect the children from father’s substance
abuse. Mother’s appeal is therefore moot.
Despite mootness, “courts may exercise their ‘inherent
discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute.” (In re D.P., supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) However, mother has not addressed the
mootness of her jurisdictional challenge and has not asked this
court to exercise its discretion to address the issue.
As jurisdiction would attach to the children regardless of
the outcome of mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings,
we can provide her no effective relief and her appeal is moot.
III. Mother’s challenge to the dispositional order is moot
Mother’s second contention is that the juvenile court erred
in removing the children from mother’s custody because DCFS
failed to show reasonable efforts had been made to prevent
removal. As set forth above, following mother’s appeal, the
children were returned to mother’s custody.
Mother is required to show an ongoing, redressable harm.
(In re S.R. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1042, 1051.) Because the children
have been returned to mother’s custody, mother cannot make this
showing.
Although the matter is moot, we have discretion to decide
the issue where there is a showing that it is appropriate under
the circumstances. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.)
13
Mother has declined to ask this court to exercise its discretion to
consider this moot issue, and we find discretionary review
inappropriate in this case.
As the children have been returned to mother’s custody,
mother’s challenge to the removal order is moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
CHAVEZ, J.
We concur:
LUI, P. J.
GOORVITCH, J.
14
