Filed 9/29/21 In re Angel M. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re AN GEL M. et al. , Person s Coming Under th e Juvenile Court Law. B 30 8983 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20C CJ P0 4605 )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANA M.

,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from order s of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing

, Ju dge

. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part

.2 William Hook , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro

- Silva, County Couns el

, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson

, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Ana M. appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order removing from her physical custody the two children sh e had with Isidro M., 16

- year

- ol d Angel M. and 14

- year

- old Blanca M.

, after the court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)

, 1 alleging Ana had a history of illicit drug use and was a current user of methamphetamine

. During the pendency of the appeal, the juvenile court ordered Angel and Blanca returned to Ana ’s physical custody and granted Ana family maintenance services

. We now dismiss Ana ’s appeal as to Angel and Blanca as moot.
Ana also appeals the juvenile court ’s custody order entered

as to the four children Ana had with Israel P.

, 11

- year

- old Victoria M., 10

- year

- old Ariam P., two

- year

- old Jade P., and
three

- month

- old Neveah P.

, granting Israel sole legal custody of
the four children

. We reject Ana ’s contention the juvenile court abused its discretion in entering the custody order , and we affirm

as to this order

. Ana does not appeal the orders the juvenile

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3

court made as to the t wo children Ana had with Edwin M., seven

year

- old Karishma M. and five

- year

- old Serenia M. 2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Prior Dependency Case
On June 4, 201 3 the juvenile court declared the four older children, Angel, Blanca, Victoria

, and Ariam

, dependents of the
court. The court sustained the allegations Ana failed to protect Angel and Blanca from physical abuse by Rosa C., an unrelated
female who lived in the home . The court also sustained the allegation Ana used methamphetamine

, which rendered her incapable of providing regular care for the children

. On Ma rch 20, 2014 the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over Angel
and Blanca. 3 O n October 30, 2015 the court ter minated jurisdiction over Victoria and Ariam and granted joint legal and physical custody to Ana and Israel

. On January 28, 201 5 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral
that in June 2014 Ana had tested positive for methamphetamine while pregnant with Serenia. Ana s aid she did not know how she tested positive for methamphetamine because she last used the

2 T he three fathers are not parties to this appeal. Isidro has not had contact with Angel and Blanca since 2013. Edwin has not had contact with his children since 2015.

3 Although the record is not clear, we assume Ana was given sole legal and physical custody because Isidro did not have contact with Angel and Blanca after 2013.4

drug in 2012. Ana ’s tox icology test was negative when she gave
birth to Serenia in January 2015 , and Serenia was not tested. The allegation was deemed unfounded because there were no continuing concerns at the time of the refer ral ; Ana and Serenia appeared healthy

.

B. The Current Referral, Investigation

, and Petition On August 10, 2020 the Department received a referral alleging Ana , who was pregnant with Neveah, tested positive for

met ham phetam ine on August 4 when she went to the emergency

room complain ing of abdominal pain. Ana denied using drugs
and could not explain why she tested positive

. Ana and Neveah tested negative for drugs at the time of Neveah’s birth

. On August 17 a social worker made an unanno unced visit

to Israel ’s home. P aternal grand mother Benita A. answered the door and gave the social worker permission to enter the home.
Ariam and Jade were present in the home. Benita stated Israel
and Ana had gone to Victoria’s s chool to pick up a lapt op for
Victoria

. Israel , Victoria

, and Ariam lived with Benita

. Benita
he lped care for the children when Israel ran errands. Paternal great

- aunt Marilou D., who was present in the home, reported
she helped care for Ariam and Victoria when Benita and Israel

w ere at work

. Benita indicated Ana and Israel were still in a romantic relationship, but they did not live together. B enita
added that Ana acted appropriate ly and appeared well during visits, and Benita had no concerns about Ana using drugs

. The same day t he social worker made an unannounced visit

to Ana ’s home . The social worker heard a female voice telling a barking dog to be quiet, but no one responded to the social worker’s knocks on the door

. After making arrangements with5

Ana by phone, the social worker returned on August 19

. Angel, Blanca, Karishma, and Serenia were present. Ana reported Victoria, Ariam, and Jade were at Israel ’s home. Ana said
Vic toria and Aria m went back and forth between her home and
Israel ’s home.
The social worker observed Ana ’s ho me was roach infested,

messy , and cluttered with “feces stains on the floor [and] open ed [R ] aid bottles,” and it smelled of animal urine. Ana stated she owned two dogs, one of which just gave birth to five or six puppies, a bird

, and five cats. Ana explained her house was messy because she was rearranging furniture and in the process
of getting rid of things. Ana worked night shifts at a resta urant
, but she was currently on family leave for six weeks

. Ana indicated her sister would help care for the children while Ana
was at work. The social worker reported Ana “adamantly denied using [methamphetamine] and could not provide an explanation as to how she tested positive.” Ana explained as to her p rior dependency case based on her methamphetamine use, “ ‘ [B]ack then I used a couple of times and I got caught. ’ ” She denied using methamphetamine since then

. Karishma and Serenia, then six and five, respectively, stated they did not attend school; Ana confirmed they were not enrolled. The social worker reported Serenia “emitted a foul odor” and appeared “unkempt with dirt stains on her legs and feet ,” dishevel ed hair, and dirty clothes

. Maternal aunt Sonia V. contacted the social worker to express her intere st in caring for Karishma and Serenia. Sonia stated she helped care for the children about five times a week
when Ana was at work. Sonia reported all the children had lice

, which she and maternal grand mother had been trying to remove.6

Sonia was aware of Ana ’s past drug use ; however, she did not suspect Ana had used drugs recently

. But Sonia admitted she
did not interact much with Ana because Ana would just drop off and pick up the children. Sonia had not visited Ana ’s home in years, but she recalled Ana was a hoarder

. On September 2, 2020 the Department filed a petition on
behalf of the eight children alleging Ana had a history of illicit drug use, was a current user of amphetamine and methamphetamine, and tested positive for both drugs on August 4, 2020. 4

C. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
The October 8, 2020 jurisdiction and disposition report stated Angel was placed in a short

- term residential therapeutic

program ; Blanca was placed with a foster family; Karishma and
Serenia were placed together with another foster family; and Victoria, Ariam, Jade

, and Ne vaeh were released to Israel

. The
children denied seeing Ana use methamphetamine , smok e , behav e erratically

, or hav e mood swings. Blanca stated she
believed Ana tested positive for methamphetamine on August 4
because “ ‘ t hey put someone else’s blood in [ Ana ], she said they put needles in her. ’ ” Blanca blamed Rosa for the prior dependency case , explaining Rosa made Blanca “ ‘ lie to social workers and say my mom was a drug addict and using drugs. ’ ” Blanca added, “ ‘ I knew Rosa was lying. R osa also said my mom hit me, but I knew it was really [Rosa] that hit me. ’ ” Angel

4 The petition also alleged Ana struck Serenia’s body with a hanger and her hands, but the juve nile court later dismissed this allegation.7

refused to provide information when asked what Ana smoked, how often, and when Ana last smoked. As to the prior dependency case, Angel stated Ana smoked “ ‘ a couple of years ago, maybe. ’ ” Both Angel and Blanca wanted to return home to
Ana

. Ana was willing to participate in services, but she denied any current use of methamphetamine or other drugs

. Ana had only used crystal methamphetamine “ ‘ for 2 months on different
occasions ’ ” in 2012. She completed a 52

- week drug program and
a 12

- step program for the prior dependency case , but she claimed
she was able to stop using methamphetamine on her own

. Ana
admitted she tested positive for methamphetamine at the
ho spital two times on August 4, 2020

. But she claimed she had
not used meth amphetamine since 2012, and it was not possible for her to have the drug in her system. Ana had no explanation
for her positive drug test s. Israel stated he was not awar e Ana was using drugs. He reported that during the prior dependency case Ana failed to show up for visits

, an d on one occasion Ana visited Victoria and Ariam while under the influence of drug s. But Israel was shocked to learn that Ana had tested positive for methamphetamine

. When Israel later spoke with Ana , she
denied using drugs. Israel had not observed Ana recently acting erratically or having mood swings

. But he noted that on the rare
occasions he visited Ana ’s home , her home would be dirty with
roaches and old food. Ana was always tired when he saw her

, and in retrospect, Israel thought drugs might have affected her
because she did not understand her home was in a problematic

state. Israel had a concern about Ana’ s ability to care for the ir
children because when Victoria and Ariam spent three weeks8

with Ana the prior summer , they returned with lice. Had Israel
know n of Ana ’s recent drug use, he would not have allowed
Victoria and Ariam t o have contact with Ana , and he would have taken steps to obtain custody of Jade

. Edwin reported that when he f irst dated Ana in 2013
,

“ ‘ she’d been using meth for a long ass time, but she stopped when
she went to [c] ourt. ’ ” Edwin stated that once the prior dependency case c losed in 2015
, Ana “started using again, [and] she wouldn’t listen to me or other people telling her to stop. ’ ”
Edwin added , “ ‘ [W]hen she got her kids back, she wasn’t smoking much, she’d do it when they were with other people. ’ ” Edwin said
Ana lived in a one

- bedroom apartment “ ‘ and she didn’t want the kids to see her smoke, so she would go to the restroom. ’ ” Edwin
and Ana separated in October 2015

, and to his knowledge, Ana was still smoking methamphetamine at the time. He could not
recall how often she smoked or how much methamphetamine she
used.
Ana test ed negative for drugs on August 20, September 9, and September 21 , 2020

. But Ana missed a random drug test on
October 2

. Ana explained she forgot to call the random testing phone number , an d w hen she called late on Saturday

, she
learned she had missed her test date

. The social worker did not find Ana’s statement credible, noting “the number to call in for random testing is only valid from Sundays to Thursdays.” According to the November 11, 2020 last minute information for
the court , Ana missed another random drug test on October 20,
2020. ~ 3 CT 612)~ The report noted Ana “has no t drug tested at all for the month of October.” The Department recommended the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over all eight children and remove them from Ana’s9

physical custody based on her unresolved methamphetamine use. The Department also reco mmended the court terminate jurisdiction over Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and N e veah , with a custody order granting Israel sole physical and legal custody with
monitored visits for Ana.

D. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
At the November 12, 2020 juri sdiction and disposition hearing, minors’ counsel (representing all children except Serenia) and Serenia’s counsel requested the juvenile court

assume jurisdiction over all eight children based on Ana ’s methamphetamine use

. M inors’ counsel also requested the court
terminate jurisdiction o ver Victoria, Ariam, Jade

, and Neveah
with a juvenile custody order granting Israel sole physical and legal custody of his children. Ana ’s counsel could not explain why
Ana tested positive and conceded Ana miss ed a random drug test

, but it was “an accident.” Ana ’s counsel also argued the allegations of Ana ’s drug use should be dismissed because there
was no current risk of harm to the children

. For disposition, Ana ’s counsel asked the juvenile court to

return all eight children to Ana because they were “ well bonded
with Ana ” and Ana “ [was] testing clean

. ” Ana was willing to participate in services and was attending a parenting course and receiving mental health services

. Ana objected to the court entering a custody order giving Israel sole legal and physical custody of Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah . In addition, Ana objected “to any drug program, as Ana is testing clean.”
T he juvenile court sustained the section 300,
subdivisio n (b)(1)

, allegations that Ana had “ a history of illicit drug use and was a current user of amphetamine [] and10

methamphetamine [] , which render [ed ] [ Ana ] incapable of provi ding regular care and supervision of the children. ” The

c ourt declared the children dependents of the court and removed
them from Ana ’s custody. The court stated, “The factual basis is [ Ana ] has a substance abuse issue that she has lacked insight for. [¶] Her home reflects the lack of engagement in parenting, and
the fact that her children were not in school, also reflects that. [¶] So the court, at this time, finds that it would be premature to return these children to her care.” The court terminated jurisdiction over Victoria, Ariam, Jade and Neveah and granted
Israel sole legal and physical custody of those children with
monitored visitation for Ana

. The court stayed the order terminating jurisdiction, and o n November 20, 2020 the court entered a juvenile custody order granting Israel sole legal and physical custody o f Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah , with “monitored visitation [for Ana] as agreed upon by parents” with an appropriate monitor.
The juvenile court ordered Ana to participate in a drug and alcohol program with aftercare

, weekly random or on demand drug testing

, a 12

- step program with a court card and sponsor

, developmentally appropriate parenting classes

, individual counseling to address case issues

, and family planning. The

court granted Ana monitored visitation with Angel, Blanca,
Karishma

, and S erenia for thre e

- hour visits

, three times per
week.
Ana timely appealed. During the pendency of her appeal,
at the six

- month review hearing held on July 15 , 2021
, the juvenile court returned Angel

, Blanca , Karishma, and Serenia to11

Ana’s physical custody. 5 (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) The court found
Ana had made substantial progress “toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement” and release of the
children to Ana “would not create a substantial risk of detriment to [t heir] safety, protection, or physical or emotional well

- being.” The court ordered the children placed in Ana’s home and ordered the Department to provide family maintenance services to Ana
and the children

. We invited the parties to submit l etter brief s addressing
whether Ana ’s appeal ha d been rendered moot by the July 15

, 2021 orders. The Department argued in its supplemental brief that Ana’s appeal as to Angel and Blanca should be dismissed as
moot because Ana would not suffer any prejudice from dism issal

. Ana filed a supplemental brief stating she “submits the matter for decision based on the placement order and respondent’s letter
brief.”

5 We take judicial notice of the July 15 , 2021 minute orders. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).) Consideration of postjudgment evidence is appropriate when the later orders are relevant to a motion to dismiss an appeal or to determine whether the evidence renders the appeal moot. ( In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676 [“appellate courts routin ely consider limited postjudgment evidence” for motions to dismiss]; In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 5 7 [appellate court may consider postappeal rulings that affect its ability to grant effective relief] .)12 D ISCUSSION

A. Ana ’s Appeal of the Order Removing Angel and Blanca from Her Physical Custody I s M oot A dependency appeal “‘“becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief.”’” ( In re J.P. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 616, 623; accord, In re
N. S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 61 [mother’s appeal was moot where juvenile court awarded her custody of minor and dismissed dependency proceedings] ; In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 134 [maternal aunt’s appeal of child’s removal from her care
and denial of her section 388 petition were rendered moot by child’s adoption] .) Ana challenges the juvenile court’s removal of Angel and Blanca from her physical custody on the basis 16

- year

- old Angel
and 14

- year

- old Blanca were at a lower risk of harm than their younger siblings because they were capable of taking care of themselves and reporting any safety issues to the social worker or other family members. But at the July 15 , 2021 six

- month review hearing, the juvenile court returned the children to her physical custody and granted her family maintenance services.
Ana ’s appeal is therefore moot because even if we reversed the removal order, we would be unable to grant Ana any effective
relief. Ana does not present any arguments to the contrary.

B. Th e Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Granting Israel Sole Legal Custody Upon termination of jurisdiction, the juv enile court may issue a custody and visitation order, commonly called an “ exit13

order, ” “determining the custody of, or visitation with, the child.” ( § 362.4, subd. (a); see In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863 ; In re Armando L. (201 6 ) 1 Cal.App. 5 th 606
, 616 .) An exit order,
like other custody orders

, focus es on the child’s best inter ests. ( In

re C.M. (20 19 ) 38 Cal.App. 5 th 101
, 109 [“ When a juvenile court makes custody and visitation orders, it does so pursuant to its authority under the Welfare and Institutions Code, guided by the totality of the circumstances in issuing orders that are in the
child ’ s best interests

. ”] ; see In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 206

. ) If there is a pending family law case

, the exit order will be filed in that proceeding (§ 362.4, subd. (b)) ; if not, the order may be used to open a new family la w case ( id. , subd. (c))

. ( See C.W. , at p. 863 ; Armando L. , at p. 616 .) The order remains effective “until modified or terminated by a subsequent order of the superior court.” (§ 362.4, subd. (b).)
W e review the juvenile court ’s exit order for a n abuse of discretion. ( In re C.W., supra , 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 863 ; see In r e Stephanie M. ( 19 9 4) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 [“when a court has made a custody determination in a dependency proceeding, ‘ “a reviewing court will not disturb that decision unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an
arbitrar y, capricious, or patently absurd determination [citations]. ” ’” ] .)
Ana contends the j uvenile court abused its discretion in awarding Israel sole legal custody of Victoria, Ariam, Jade

, and
N e veah because it was not in the children’s best interests. She argues there was n o showing she had a limited ability to participate in decision making relating to the children’s health, education, and welfare.14 However , as the juvenile court found, Ana had a c ontinuing substance abuse issue and lacked insight into her drug problem. Ana was adamant she had not used methamphetamine since 2012, even though she tested positive for methamphetamine in June 2014 while pregnant with Serenia and again in August
2020 wh ile pregnant with Neveah. On both occasions, Ana could not explain her positive drug test results. Further, Edwin M., who was in a relationship with Ana from 2013 to October 2015, reported once the prior dependency case closed, “[Ana] started using again , she wouldn’t listen to me or other people telling her to stop.” Although Ana completed a 52

- week drug treatment program in the prior dependency case, she maintained she did not need the program to stop using drugs and only completed it
because of the co urt order. Moreover, Ana did not drug test in October 2020, missing two random drug tests the month before the November 12 disposition hearing. Israel was concerned that Ana’s drug use may have affected
Ana ’s parenting in that she did not understand the condition of her home was a problem , and the prior summer Ana had
returned Victoria and Ariam to Israel with lice after they spent
three weeks with Ana

. The juvenile court found the condition of Ana’s home reflected “lack of engagement in parenting.” Wh en the social worker visited Ana’s home on August 19, 2020, the house had feces stains on the floor, smelled of animal urine, had open Raid bottles, was roach infested, and cluttered. Serenia “emitted a foul odor,” had dirt stains on her legs and feet,
disheveled hair, and dirty clothes. Further, Ana’s contention she met her children’s medical and educational needs is belied by the record. We acknowledge
the COVID

- 19 pandemic made it challenging for Ana to keep the15

children current with their medical e xaminations and Jade up to
date with immunizations

. But Ana showed poor parenting judgment with her other children in her care before all eight were removed from her custody. Ana provides no reason why she did
not enroll six

- year

- old Karishma and five

- ye ar

- old Serenia in
school. After Karishma was placed in foster care, she started attending first grade, but according to her foster parents, she was “struggling in school and her teacher is worried about her development as she appears to be far behind her peers and struggling.” Further, “Karishma cannot write her name, can only count to 4 and ‘can’t keep up’ in school.” After her placement, Serenia was enrolled by her foster parent in kindergarten; the foster parent reported “Serenia is eager to learn but is very behind and does not know her letters or numbers.” In addition, Angel had an individualized education plan (IEP) for “[e]motional [d]isturbance,” and Ana failed to participate in his IEP meeting despite being notified three times. Ana also did no t attend a June 4, 2020 evaluation for Blanca’s IEP plan for Blanca’s learning disability. Ana’s failure to provide proper parenting as
to four of the children in her care was a valid basis on which to conclude she was not ready to parent her other four c hildren

— Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah. Victoria and Ariam were younger than Angel and Blanca, and Jade and Neveah were also younger than Karishma and Serenia. And Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah had a father ( Israel) who was committed to caring for
all four childre n and had no history of alcohol or drug problems or other issues that would interfere with his decision making as to
the children

.16 Under the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile court
did not abuse its discretion in granting Israel sole legal custody of Victoria, Ariam, Jade

, and Neveah. 6

DISPOSITION

Ana’s appeal from the disposition order removing A ngel
and Blanca from Ana’s physical custody is dismissed. The juvenile custody order as to Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah is
affirmed.

FEUER, J.
W e concur :

PERLUSS , P. J.

SEGAL, J.

6 We recognize the juvenile court on Ju l y 1 5, 2021 returned Angel

, Blanca , Karishma, and Serenia to Ana’s care . But this has no bearing on whether the court should have granted joint legal custody of Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah to Ana eight months earlier at the disposition hear ing

. A t that hearing , the
court removed all eight children from Ana’s care

.