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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ANGEL M. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B308983

 (Los Angeles County Super. 

 Ct. No. 20CCJP04605)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANA M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. 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 Counsel, 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 she had 

with Isidro M., 16-year-old 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 two children Ana had with Edwin M., sevenyear-old Karishma M. and five-year-old Serenia M.2 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Prior Dependency Case 

On June 4, 2013 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 March 

20, 2014 the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over Angel 

and Blanca.3 On October 30, 2015 the court terminated 

jurisdiction over Victoria and Ariam and granted joint legal and 

physical custody to Ana and Israel.

On January 28, 2015 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 said she did not know how she 

tested positive for methamphetamine because she last used the 

2 The 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 toxicology 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 referral; 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 

methamphetamine on August 4 when she went to the emergency 

room complaining 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 unannounced visit 

to Israel’s home. Paternal grandmother 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 school to pick up a laptop for 

Victoria. Israel, Victoria, and Ariam lived with Benita. Benita 

helped 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

were at work. Benita indicated Ana and Israel were still in a 

romantic relationship, but they did not live together. Benita 

added that Ana acted appropriately and appeared well during 

visits, and Benita had no concerns about Ana using drugs.

The same day the 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 with 
5

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 

Victoria and Ariam went back and forth between her home and 

Israel’s home. 

The social worker observed Ana’s home was roach infested, 

messy, and cluttered with “feces stains on the floor [and] opened

[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 restaurant, 

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 prior 

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,” disheveled hair, and dirty clothes.

Maternal aunt Sonia V. contacted the social worker to 

express her interest 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 grandmother 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 Nevaeh were released to Israel. The 

children denied seeing Ana use methamphetamine, smoke,

behave erratically, or have mood swings. Blanca stated she 

believed Ana tested positive for methamphetamine on August 4

because “‘they 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. Rosa 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 juvenile 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 

hospital two times on August 4, 2020. But she claimed she had 

not used methamphetamine since 2012, and it was not possible 

for her to have the drug in her system. Ana had no explanation 

for her positive drug tests.

Israel stated he was not aware Ana was using drugs. He

reported that during the prior dependency case Ana failed to 

show up for visits, and on one occasion Ana visited Victoria and 

Ariam while under the influence of drugs. 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 their

children because when Victoria and Ariam spent three weeks 
8

with Ana the prior summer, they returned with lice. Had Israel

known of Ana’s recent drug use, he would not have allowed 

Victoria and Ariam to have contact with Ana, and he would have 

taken steps to obtain custody of Jade. 

Edwin reported that when he first 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 closed 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 tested 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, and when 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 not 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’s 
9

physical custody based on her unresolved methamphetamine use. 

The Department also recommended the court terminate 

jurisdiction over Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah, 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 jurisdiction 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. Minors’ counsel also requested the court

terminate jurisdiction over 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 missed 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.” 

The juvenile court sustained the section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), allegations that Ana had “a history of illicit 

drug use and was a current user of amphetamine[] and
10

methamphetamine[], which render[ed] [Ana] incapable of 

providing regular care and supervision of the children.” The 

court 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 on November 20, 2020 the court 

entered a juvenile custody order granting Israel sole legal and 

physical custody of 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 Serenia for three-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 to 
11

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 [their] 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 letter briefs addressing 

whether Ana’s appeal had 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 dismissal. 

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 routinely consider 

limited postjudgment evidence” for motions to dismiss]; In re N.S. 

(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 57 [appellate court may consider 

postappeal rulings that affect its ability to grant effective relief].)
12

DISCUSSION

A. Ana’s Appeal of the Order Removing Angel and Blanca from 

Her Physical Custody Is Moot

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. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in

Granting Israel Sole Legal Custody 

Upon termination of jurisdiction, the juvenile court may 

issue a custody and visitation order, commonly called an “exit 
13

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. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 606, 616.) An exit order, 

like other custody orders, focuses on the child’s best interests. (In 

re C.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 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 law 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).) 

We review the juvenile court’s exit order for an abuse of 

discretion. (In re C.W., supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 863; see In re 

Stephanie M. (1994) 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 

arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination 

[citations].”’”].)

Ana contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

awarding Israel sole legal custody of Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and 

Neveah because it was not in the children’s best interests. She 

argues there was no 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 continuing 

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 while 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 court 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.” When 

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 the 
15

children current with their medical examinations 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-year-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 not 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 children—

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 children 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 Angel 

and Blanca from Ana’s physical custody is dismissed. The 

juvenile custody order as to Victoria, Ariam, Jade, and Neveah is 

affirmed. 

FEUER, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

6 We recognize the juvenile court on July 15, 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 hearing. At that hearing, the 

court removed all eight children from Ana’s care.