Filed 4/6/ 23 In re Serenity T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinio n has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF AP PEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re SERENITY T. et al.

, Person s Coming Under the Juveni le Court Law. B314686 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP07071 B

- E )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.M.,

Defendan t and Appellant.

APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angele s County. Hern a n D. Vera , Judge. Affirmed.2 Donna Balderston Kaiser , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant

.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Coun sel, a nd Brian Mahler

, D eputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant N.M. (mother) appe als from the juvenile court ’ s jurisdictional findings regarding her four children and the subsequent dispositional order rem ov ing them fro m her cu st ody

. She argues that both the jurisdictional fin dings an d the removal
order are unsupported by substantial evidence

. We affirm. FACTS A ND PROCEDURAL BACKG ROUND
I

. The Family and Prior Dependency Case
Mo ther has four children , Ser enity T. ( born Dec

. 2007 ),
Samuel R. (

born Sept

. 200 9 ) , S.R. ( born Nov

. 2010 ) , and A .P. ( born Oct

. 2018). 1 In 2016, mother ’ s struggl es with substan ce abuse issues

p rompt ed h er three eldest children to mov e t o Ohio to live with
their maternal great

- grandmo ther (great

- gr andmothe r )

. In 2018, when A.P. was born, mother tested positive for amphetamines. In sub sequent weeks , she tested positive for amphetam ine , alcohol, and marijuana. Consequently

, the juvenile court declared newbor n A.P. a dep end ent of the c ourt and remov e d her from mother ’ s custo dy

. 2

1 The c hildren ’ s fathers are not part i es to this app ea l

.

2 In the course of this proceeding, A.P. ’ s fath er alleged that he had Choct aw ancestry. In accordance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA ) ( 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)

, the juv e nile court3 In January 2020, the juvenile court terminated it s custody over A.P. and returned he r to mother

. Mot her ’ s three eldest
children then moved back to Los Ang eles to live with Mother and
A

. P.
II

. I nciting Incident On June 6, 20 20, the Los Angeles County Department o f
Child ren and F amily Servi ces (DCFS ) re ceived a referral alleging
that moth er had reported t hat the children ’ s maternal grandmother ( grandmother) had kidnapped them , which grandmother denied . The refer ral also alleg ed that the two oldest children , Serenity and Samuel, had r eported that mother
had punched them, hit t hem with a belt, and failed to provide
them with adequate fo od

. When contacted by DCFS, mother said that , during a recent vi sit, grandmother had demand ed a portion of the
settlement money that mo ther had rece ived after being the victim of a crime. After mother refused t hese demands , grandmother kidnapped the children and took them to her home in Louisiana

. 3

ordered notice sent to the Bur eau of Indian Affairs an d the three federally recognized Choc taw tr ibes

. Two of the tribes informed the juvenile court that A.P. was not an Indian child as defined by ICWA; the third tribe did not r espond. In Ju l y 2019, the juvenile

cou r t found that it had no reason to know that A.P. was a n Indian child per ICWA.

3 A social worker in Louisiana told DCFS t hat mother had

“ denied pl acing a kidnapping report, ” and had actually

“ requ ested that the chil dren stay ” wit h grandmothe r in Louisiana. When the soc ial worker in formed mother that it would be i mpossible for the children to stay in Louisiana due to the kidnapping r eport, mother insisted that she had never made4 G reat

- grandmother told DCFS investi gators that sh e did
not underst and why mothe r had accused grandmother of kidnapping, as the children sta yed with grandmother in
Loui siana “ every summer

. ” Great

- grandmother also reported
that Serenity and Samuel had told her that mother was “ leaving the[] [children] alo ne and

. . . drinki ng alcohol. ” Mother denied hitting any of the children or leaving them by themselves, and agreed to submit to dru g testing

. She
subs equently tested positive for marij uana and al cohol , with her
blood alc ohol content registe ring at 0.17 p ercent

. When the children returned to Los Angeles, social workers

s eparately interviewed S erenity and Sam uel

. S erenity said that mother had hit her on the arms, legs, and buttocks with a belt

a nd the cord of a cell p ho ne charger. She said t hat the most

r ecent episode occur red two mo nt hs earlier, when mother had
taken the children with her to Las Vegas an d then stayed out for an entire night. When mother returned in the morning, Seren ity
and Sam ue l asked her where she had been; mother became upse t
, told t hem to “ shut the f *** up, ” and, when they continued asking questions, took her phone charge r out of the wall outlet and began hitting th em with it. Serenity al so reported that mother s ometimes lef t the house to go drinking and would not retur n fo r a couple of days. She complained that there was “ never anything for [the c hildren]

to eat ” in the house. Samuel confirmed that mother sometimes beat him. He said that the las t time she hit him was after their return from the

any such report and that she wanted th e children to r emain with grandmother.5

Las Vegas trip; he had called grandmo ther to let her know that the family was back home, and mother “ ‘ got upse t and slapped [him] in the face with her hand because [he] wasn ’ t supposed to tell anyon e

. ’ ” Samuel a lso agreed that mother drank frequently.
When asked what he needed from mother, Samuel started crying
and said th at he “ ‘ need [ed] her to grow up, stop going out with boys she doesn ’ t know, stop d rinking, an d stop lea vin g us at home by ourselves. ’ ” On June 18, 2020, the juvenile court issued an expedited
removal order. D CFS diligently attempted to serve mother with the removal order, b ut mother could not be reached for two day s. When DCFS con tacted her by phone, mother said that she was at a friend ’ s home and could not give DCFS an address, but
confirmed that she would m eet a social w orker at a DCFS office that day. She did not appear with the children a nd failed to

ans wer subse quent phone calls. Acco rdingly, DCFS filed a missing persons report with law enforcement to attempt to locate
mother and the c hildren.
I I I. Jur isdiction Peti tion On June 2 3 , 2 020, DCFS filed a petition pu rsuant to W el fare and Institutions Code section 300, 4 alleging that the
children w ere at substantial risk of suffering serious physical
har m based on mother ’ s physic al abuse of Serenity an d Samu el (counts a

- 1 , a

- 2, b

- 1, b

- 2, j

- 1, and j

- 2), substance abuse problems

4 All further s tatutory references are to the Welfare and Ins titutions Code unless otherwis e indicated.6

(cou nt s b

- 3 and j

- 3 ), and repeated instances of leaving the
children alone at night without adult supervision (cou nt b

- 5)

. 5
IV. Detention a nd Removal On June 26, 2020, the juvenile cou rt h eld a dete ntion hearing. Mother and the children failed to appear. T he juvenile
court ordered the children de tained from mother, issu ing an arrest warrant for mother and protective custo dy warrants for
the children.
On July 27, 2020, DCFS managed to contact mother and

conv inced her to surrender the children at a DCFS office. The

arres t and pr otective custody warrants were sub seq uently
recalled.
The children were placed with di fferent non related extended family members; Ser enity and S .R. went to one h ome, and Samue l and A.P. went to another.
V. Further Jurisdicti on and Status R e ports I n a subse quent jurisdiction and d isposition report, D CFS reported that Serenity and Samuel recanted their earlier allegations that mother had left the children home alo ne. Serenity sa id tha t gran dmother had told her to make those allegations to increase the children ’ s cha nces of being placed with

g randmother. Both children repeated their allegations regar ding physical
abuse and sub stance abuse

. Seren ity said that moth er hit her
wit h a belt when she had done something mother did not want
her to do or to teach her to stop being “ disrespe ct[ful] ” to mother

, and that mother had hit Samuel in the face with her hand

. Serenity also believed that mother dran k “ a lot ” of a lc oh ol, w hich

5 The petition also included allegations against A.P. ’ s father based on his substance abuse probl ems (count b

- 4)

.7

caus ed her to become “ irritated ” and “ mad ” and hit the children. Serenity reported see ing mother smoke marijuana and “ snort some white stuff

” on one occasion

. Samuel denied th at mother had ever hit him in the face

, but confir med that she had “ whooped ” both him and Serenity
with a belt. He repeated his earlier statem ent s about mother ’ s drinking. Serenity and S amuel ’ s younger sister S.R. claimed that she
had never seen mother hit her siblings or drink al cohol, and denied that mother ever lef t t he children al one. G randmot her said that Seren ity and S a muel had reported prior incidents of physical abuse, including hitting Serenity in the face and hitting Samuel with a wire hanger. And Samuel and
S.R. ’ s father sai d that both children had told him t hat mothe r

“ ‘ w ould hit them, ’ ” “ ‘ dri nk [] around them and get [] drunk, ’ ” and

“ ‘ leave them home alone

. ’ ” Mother denied ever hitting the children for any reaso n. She blam ed grandmother for the current case and the children ’ s removal

, accusing grandmother of coaching th e children to lie. She also blamed her alcohol use on grand mother, claiming that
she had “ rela pse[d] ” into heavy drinking to cope with “ stre ss ” arising from grandmother ’ s June 2020 visit. S he admitted to

pa st cocaine and methampheta mine use, but claimed th at she
had not used any drugs since 2018. In Septemb er 2020, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to provide mother with services and gran ted mother regular monitored visitation. H owever, between October 20 20 and8

August 2021, DCFS reported that mother had not been cooperative or fully engaged with services. 6 Mother only had sporadic visitation with the ch ildren

, and often failed to resp ond to DCFS inq uiries about her participa tion
in services. S he submitted to one drug test in July 2021 , and

te sted positive for c odeine, m orphine, and mar ijuana. She failed to appear for h er second sc heduled drug test

. VI. Ju risdictional and Dispos itional Hearing On August 20, 2 021, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and d isposition hearing. At th e hearing

, mot her testified that her positive tests for codeine and morp hine resulted from pres cription medication. She said that she had been hosp italized three times in 2021 for seizures, for which she was given codeine; she a lso alleged that she was pr escribed morph ine for high blood pressure

. Mother
deni ed drinking any alcohol since June 2020, but admitted to regular marijuana use. Mother repeated her earlier kidnapping allegat ions against grandmother. She blamed her inconsistent visi tation on movin g to San Berna rdino County, transportation issues, and becoming
homeless. Mother admitted that she had not participated in any
services.
The juvenile court sustained counts b

- 1, b

- 2, b

- 3, j

- 1, j

- 2, and j

- 3 against moth er, fin ding true the allegations reg arding
mother ’ s p hysical abuse of Seren ity and Sa muel and mother ’ s

6 During this time, DCFS investigated r epo rts that Serenity and S.R. were being negle cted and/or emotionally and sexually abused in their current placement. Serenity subse quently

recan ted these allegations, sa ying th at grandmothe r had told her
to ma ke false repor t s to facili tate fu ture placement with grandmother.9

su bstance abuse

. Accordingly, the cou rt exercised jurisdiction over all four children. Additionally , the juvenile court re moved
the children from mother ’ s custody and ordered reunificatio n services for mother , to include drug and alcohol testing and
treatment, counseling , p arenting classes, and monitored
visitation.
VI I. Appeal
Mother time ly appealed.

DI SCUSSION Mother argues that the juveni le cou rt ’ s jurisdictional findings and removal order should be reversed becaus e both are unsupported by su bstantial evidence

. 7 For the reasons below, we disag ree and affirm.
I. Jur isdictional Findings
Mother contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court ’ s jurisdictional f indings under section 300, subdiv isions (b)(1) and ( j ).
A. App licable Law
Under section 300, subdivision (b)(1 ) , the juvenile court h as jurisdiction over and may adjudge to be a dependent of the court

7 In her opening brief, mother also argued that the juvenile court failed to s atisfy its d uties of inquir y under ICWA with respect to her youngest dau ghter , A.P

. DCFS then requested that w e take judicia l notice of doc uments from the 2019 dependency proceeding involving A. P. , in which all proper ICWA inquiries were made

, appropriate notices were sent to the Bureau of Indian Af

fairs and rele vant tribes

, and the juvenile court ultimately found that A.P. was not an Indian c h ild. Mother concedes that th ese documents fully resolve her ICWA argume nt

. Accordingl y, since w e granted the request for judic ial notice, we

n eed not consider mother ’ s ICWA claims

.10

a “child [who] has suffered, or there is a substanti al risk that t he child will suffe r, ser ious physical harm or illness, as a result of

. . . [¶]

. . . [ t ] he fai lure or inability of [ his or her ] parent

. . . to adequately supervise or protect the child

. . . ” Jurisdiction also extends, under section 3 00, subdivisi o n ( j )

, to a child whose “ sibling has been abused or n eglected, as defined
in [section 300

, ] subdivis ion (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as
defined in those subdivisions

. . . . ” In det ermining whether such jurisdiction e xists, the court must “ consider the circumstances surrounding th e abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition o f the parent o r guar dian, and any other factors the court considers probative in determining
whether there is a su bstantial risk to the child. ” (§ 300, subd. ( j).) “[S]ection 300 does not require that a child actually be abused or neglected before the juv enile court ca n assume jurisdiction. The subdivisions at issue here require only a ‘substantial risk’ that the ch ild will be abused o r neglected

. . . . ‘The court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps nece ssary to protect the child.’ ” (

In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 .)
B. Standard of Review
We re view the juvenile court ’ s jurisdictio nal findings for
substantial evidence

— “evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid val ue. [Citati ons. ] We do n ot evaluate the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or
determine the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile cour t ’ s order and affirm the order even if11

there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding.” (In re R.V. (2 012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)
C. A nalysis Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court ’ s jurisdictional findings as to all four childre n. Regarding the physical abuse findings, Serenity and Samuel repeatedly said
that mother hit them with a belt, a cel l phone charger, or her hand. Al though the y occasiona lly recanted some details

, they
maintained that mother “ whooped ” them with a belt a n d with her
han d to discipline them , and that, when drinking, she would get

“ irritated ” and hit them. Both g randmother and Samuel and
S .R. ’ s father said that the children had reported that mother
would hit them

. Thi s tendency to physically lash out when
f rustrated or u pset
, especially after drinking, risks not just Serenity and Samuel ’ s safety

, but al so their younger sibl ings ’

. Th is evid ence is also relevant to the substan ce abuse findings issued against mother. Not only is the record replete
with evidenc e of mother ’ s substance abuse

— including multiple positive drug a nd alcohol tests

— but Sereni ty expr essly linked
mother ’ s inebriation to her short temper and physically abusive
conduct . Mother admitted that she was prone to exce ssive drinking when stressed

, yet made no e ffort to engage in treatment services in the year between the children ’ s dete ntion

a nd th e juvenile court ’ s exercise of j urisdiction. And A.P

., mother ’ s youngest child, was only two years old at the time of the jurisdiction hearing . (See In re Christop he r R. (2014)
225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219

– 1220 ( Christop her R. ) [children “ six years old or young er at the time of the jurisdiction hearing ” are

“ children of ‘ tender years ’ ” for whom “ the finding of substance abuse is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or12

guardi an to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of
harm ” ]. )
Mothe r raises three arguments against our conclus ions. First, she contends that the physical abuse allegations are unsupported because Ser enity admitted to being coac hed by grandmother to lie about mother ’ s behavior. However, Ser enity only at tributed gra ndmot her ’ s coaching to allegations that
mother wo uld leave the children alone

— which the juvenile court
did not sustain

. Serenity did not recant any stat ements about

p hysical abuse

. Samuel did attempt to walk back his prior

statement that mother had h it him in the face with her hand, but
Ser enity consis tently repeated h er cla ims that mother had hit S amuel with both a belt and with her hand. Viewing the r ecord

, and par ticularly the children ’ s s tatements, as a whole, substantial evidence supports the ju venile co urt ’ s conclusion tha t mother had physically abused Serenity and Samu el. Mother also argues that any alleged hitting, either with an object or with h er hand, was a cceptable disci pline rather than impermissible physical abuse

. We cannot agree. Ser enity and Samuel stated that mother hit them not just to discipline them, but also when she was drinking, “ irritated, ” or “ ma d. ” In one instance

, mother rep eatedly hit th e children w ith a cell phone charger t o stop them from asking questions ab out where she had been the night before. In another

, mother hit Samuel when he failed to comply with her instruction to conceal the family ’ s l ocation from grandmother.
These insta nces do not fall , as mother argues, “ within the realm of permissible disci pline

. ” The cases mother cites in support of this argument are inappo site. ( See In re J o el H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1201 [ reversing physical abuse findings13

base d on the careg iver s s panking a child with their hand s , when such spankings “ we re the [c aregivers ’ ] brand of discipline ” and

“ [ t ] here was no evidence that the [caregivers] struck [the child] with objects

, ” such as “ a

. . . belt ” ] ; In re Isabella F. (2014)
226 Cal.App.4t h 128

, 131

– 132, 139 [ reversi ng physical abuse findings where “ no thin g in the recor d

. . . suggest[ed] ” that
mother ’ s single ph ysical altercation wit h her daughter was anything other than “ an isola ted incident ” ] .)
Second , mother argues that no evidence sugg e sts a ne xus between mother ’ s substance abuse and a substantial r isk of harm
to the children. Mother correctly states that

, in order to exercise dependency jurisdiction on the basis of a parent ’ s substan ce abuse

, there must be a “nexus” betw een the parent ’ s substance
abu se and the risk of harm to the child by virtue of the parent ’ s “fai lure to ensure [that the c hild] w[as] safely cared for and supervised

. ” (

In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 185 .)
But “[t] his is not

. . . a case i nvolving subst a nce abuse without

more. ” ( In re L.W. (201 9) 32 Cal.App.5th 840

, 851.) Indeed

,
mo ther ’ s argument ignores Seren ity ’ s explicit statements that
mother would get “ irritated ” and hit the children after drinking

, as well as A .P. ’ s ver y young age ( s ee Christop h e r R. , supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1219

– 1220 )

. Lastly, mother a rgues that S.R

. ’ s consistent denials about
mother ’ s drinki ng demonstrate that mother never drank to

ex cess around t he children

. This argument ignores contradictory evidence fro m S.R. ’ s fathe r , reporting that both Sam uel and S.R.
had told him about mother ’ s drinking, an d from Serenity and Samuel

, who repeatedly a ttested to mother ’ s drinking. ( In re
R.V.
, supra , 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 843 [under our standard of14

review, we must “ af

firm

. . . eve n if there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding ” ] .)
II

. Removal Or der
Mother also challenges the evidentiary b a sis for the dispositional order removing the children from her custody. A. Relevant L aw Before removing a child from p arental custod y , the juvenile court is required to “make one of five specified findings by c lear and convincing evidence. (§ 361, subd. ( c).) One ground for removal is that there is a substantial risk of injury to the child ’ s physical health, safety, pro tection or emo t ional well

- being if he or
she were returned home, and there are no reasonable m eans to protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (c) ( 1).) “ ‘Clear and convincing” evidence requires a finding of high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to leave no subst a ntial doubt. It must be sufficiently strong to command the unhe sitating assent of every
reasonable mind. [Citations.]’ [Cit a tion.] Actual harm to a child is not necessary before a child can be removed. ‘Reasonable apprehension stands as an accepted b a sis for the exercise of state power.’ ” (

I n re V.L

. (2020) 54 Ca l.App.5th 147, 15 4.)
B. Standard of R eview We review a dispos i tional order removing a minor from parental custody for substantial evidence. ( In re V.L.
, supra , 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 154.) Be c ause the juvenile court must make
its find ing that a ground for removal exists und er the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof (§ 361, subd. (c)), “the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a
whole contains s ubstantial evi d ence from which a reasonable fact finder c ould have found it hig hly probable that the fact was true.” ( Conservatorship of O.B. ( 2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.)15 C. An alysis We find that substantial evidence exists from which the juvenile court c ould find it h i ghly pr obable that the children were suffering a substantial ris k of physical or emotional injury in
mother ’ s custody, and th at there were no reasonable means to protect the children short of removal

. (§ 361, subd. (c)(3).)
The record shows that mother h a d a tumultu ous history of
substance abuse and unstable parenting . In January 2020, she regained custody of all four of h e r c h ildren f or the first time in over three years

, after A.P. had spent the first year of her life in foster care and t he three older children had spent over t hree

years in Ohio with great

- grandmoth er. Within f ive months,
mother ’ s substance abus e issues a nd physical abuse of her older
children caused the children to be detained from her care. During this ca se, mother has demonstrated a perni cious instability. She bl ames grandmother for the family ’ s troubles and her own drinking , taking little to no res pon sibility for her
own actions

— desp ite the fact that it was mother ’ s dubious kidnapping cl aim that initially brought the family to DCFS ’
attention. (

In re Gab riel K. (20 12) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [ “ One cann ot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge ” ]. )
Mother ’ s reported substance abuse and tendency to physically
lash out at the children when irritated

, combined with h er repeated fa i lure s to acknowledge her problematic behavior

, cooperate with DCF S

, and pa rticipate in rehabilitative services

, create a s ignificant safety risk for the children if t hey remained in her custody.
Mother ar gues that drug and alcohol testing an d regular
soci a l worker visits would obvi ate the need f or removal. But the

reco rd shows that mother was either inca pable or unwilling to16

sub mit to regular drug testing, demonstrated by her prior no

show test a nd by DCFS ’ freque nt struggle to stay in conta ct with
her

. 8 And an y unannounced visit could “only assess the situation

. . . at the time of the visit.” ( In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App. 5th 283,
293. ) This is particularly concerning considering A.P. ’ s extremely

young age, as children young enough to nee d constant

sup e rvision face an “ ‘inherent’ ” and substantial risk of serious phys ical harm if their caregiv er is engaged in activity that

ren ders her less capable of providing the requisite supervision. ( Christopher R.

, supra , 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1216.)
M other also ar g ues that DCFS never truly believed that the children were in dang er while in her custody, because the y did not remove the chi ldr en on the same day the expedited
removal order issued. Mother cites no legal authority supporting her propositio n that this ar g ument fatally undermines the juvenile co urt ’ s ultimate removal or der. ( Landr y v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 C al. App.4th 691, 699

– 700 [ “When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed aband oned and discu s sion by the reviewing co urt is unnecessary ” ] .)
Nor is the argume nt factuall y sound; a c ursory r eview of
the record revea ls t hat what mother characterizes as DCFS ’ delay in executing the ex pedited removal order actually re flect s mother ’ s eva si veness and f a ilure to communicate with DCFS. DCFS sought an expedited removal order thre e days after first

8 Even taking mother ’ s p osition that “ [i ]n the prior [ d ependency ] ca se involving [A. P.], [ m]other had worked diligently with [DCFS] and complied with services, ” mother ’ s actions in th is c urren t case do not indicate a present willingness or ability to cooper ate with DCFS or participate in service s.17

interviewing Serenity and Sam uel; attempted to serve the order over the next two days, only to be stymied by mother ’ s unreachability and failure t o follow throu g h on her promise to deliver the children to a DCFS office ; and th en immediat ely filed a missing persons report in an atte mpt to locate mother and the
children. Contrary to mother ’ s arguments, these actions do n ot belie a lack of urgency or u ndercut t he n e ed for removal. DISPOSITION
T he findings and orders are aff irmed

. NOT TO BE PU BLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

__ _________________

__ , Acting P. J. ASHMANN

- GERST

We concur:

_________________________, J. CHAVEZ

_________

______________

_ _, J. HOFFSTADT