Filed 11/3/21 In re A.J. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.J., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B309448

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. Nos.

20LJJP00060B,

20LJJP00060C

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Stephanie M. Davis, Judge Pro Tempore of the Juvenile 

Court. Dismissed.

David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Melania Vartanian, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional 

finding that mother’s history of substance abuse and current 

abuse of alcohol and marijuana placed her twin girls (born 

June 2017) at risk of serious physical harm under Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)1 and 

dispositional order requiring mother to participate in a

comprehensive drug and alcohol program. Because the 

juvenile court has since terminated its jurisdiction over the 

twins, and the jurisdictional findings are not the basis of any 

current order adverse to mother, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

BACKGROUND

1. Events leading to filing of section 300 petition

Mother’s and father’s twin daughters A.J. and E.J. were 

declared dependents of the juvenile court on November 24, 2020,

under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). The juvenile 

court sustained allegations in an amended petition that the twins

were at risk of physical and emotional harm based on father’s 

violence against mother—including shooting her in May 2018

while she was at home with the children—and mother’s failure 

to protect the children; father’s unresolved history of illicit drug

use; and mother’s history of substance abuse and current abuse 

of alcohol and marijuana. Father is not a party to this appeal. 

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.
3

Mother challenges the jurisdictional finding based on her 

substance abuse. She does not challenge the jurisdictional 

findings based on father’s conduct or her own failure to protect 

the children from father’s conduct.

The family came to the Department’s attention in late 

December 2019 when mother called the Department’s hotline

to ask for help with her teenage daughter M.C.’s behavior.2

The Department investigated. M.C. had run away from home

on December 9, 2019 (staying with friends and relatives), after 

mother told M.C. she did not need to live there if she couldn’t 

follow the rules.3 M.C. returned December 26, 2019. M.C. 

also had run away two months earlier, on Halloween, from 

her father S.C.’s home in Las Vegas after having lived with 

him and his girlfriend for five months.

Mother revealed, and M.C. later confirmed, that in May 

2018 father had fired a gun into her house and shot her while 

the twins and M.C. were inside in their rooms. Mother admitted 

she and father had been in a “domestic violence relationship,” 

and father used drugs.4 A judgment with custody order, 

2 M.C. is the twins’ half-sibling (born January 2005). 

Neither she nor her father are parties to this appeal.

3 Mother had learned M.C. received three F’s and smashed 

M.C.’s cellphone.

4 Father has several criminal convictions. He was 

arrested after the shooting incident with mother and remained 

incarcerated. During the Department’s investigation, father

denied having shot mother but admitted to a history of substance 

abuse.
4

dated April 13, 2018, granted mother sole physical and legal 

custody of the twins and father supervised visitation at paternal 

grandmother’s home.

Mother also admitted she had become depressed when her

mother died and “drank alcohol a lot.” She told the social worker 

she had a glass of wine every night, but denied using drugs. She 

clarified she drank wine to relax rather than take medication 

that made her sleepy. She tested positive for marijuana on 

January 23, 2020; her urine sample was “dilute.”

The twins, age two at the time, appeared comfortable 

in mother’s home and had no signs of neglect. Their daycare 

provider had no concerns about mother. Nevertheless, the 

Department was concerned about the young children needing 

“constant care and sober supervision,” and their “expos[ure] 

to the discord between” mother and M.C.

On January 29, 2020, the Department filed a juvenile 

dependency petition on behalf of all three children alleging 

mother’s history of substance abuse and current use of alcohol 

and marijuana interfered with her ability to care for the children 

and endangered them. The petition also included allegations 

concerning mother’s mental and emotional problems and 

her exclusion of M.C. from the home without making a plan 

for her care and supervision. At the detention hearing, the 

juvenile court released A.J. and E.J. to mother, but detained 

them from father.5

5 The court released M.C. to both parents. On February 18, 

2020, she was detained and held at juvenile hall for violating 

the terms of an earlier probation. The juvenile delinquency court 

released M.C. to S.C.
5

2. Continued investigation

The Department’s jurisdiction/disposition report included 

the results of its continued investigation. M.C. denied mother 

had a substance abuse problem. She confirmed mother would 

have “ ‘a couple of glasses’ ” of wine per day, but M.C. said mother

hadn’t “ ‘been drinking anything’ ” since the dependency case 

opened. She then said that, when mother had money to buy 

wine, she would have “ ‘a cup every night before she goes 

to sleep’ ” after putting the twins to bed. M.C. also confirmed 

mother “used to smoke weed but since the case started she 

stopped.” M.C. said mother did not smoke around her or the 

twins, but sometimes M.C. could “ ‘smell it.’ ” She thought 

mother smoked at night when the twins were asleep.

During an interview on February 18, 2020, mother said 

she “ ‘occasionally’ ” has wine when she goes out with friends or 

on the weekend. She told the social worker she had one or two

glasses of wine, three times a week. Mother explained that, after 

she had fed and put the twins to bed at night, she might “ ‘choose 

to have . . . some wine.’ ” She said she last drank wine two days 

earlier and had not used marijuana in five months, when she 

had some edibles.

When asked about her drug testing schedule, mother said 

she “kept forgetting to call the testing hotline each day” to check 

if she had to drug test. As to her January 23, 2020 positive

marijuana test result, mother said she had last used edibles six 

months earlier, and her dilute result was due to drinking water. 

The social worker suggested mother set a reminder on her phone

to call about testing and limit her water intake before a test.
6

3. Amended petition and reports pending adjudication

On March 13, 2020, the Department filed a first amended 

petition to add allegations about the domestic violence between 

mother and father and father’s drug abuse. Due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic, the adjudication hearing was continued 

several times until November 2020.

In the interim, the Department reported mother was 

attending a parenting program, taking an online domestic

violence class, and participating in counseling. She had not 

drug tested consistently, however. Mother had missed eight

tests between March 2020 and August 3, 2020, tested negative

at one test in March and one test in June, and had dilute results 

on June 15 and July 1, 2020.

In October 2020, the Department’s report noted mother

had been partially compliant in her family maintenance case 

due to the pandemic and resulting lack of access to services. 

Mother missed her drug tests on August 18 and September 21, 

2020, had a dilute test on August 26, 2020, and tested negative 

on October 2, 2020.

In its report filed before the November 2020 adjudication

hearing, the Department informed the court that mother had 

completed her parenting program and a nonapproved online 

domestic violence program. Mother also had begun to participate

in family preservation services in October. Mother, however, 

was “ ‘adamant that she does not have a substance abuse issue.’ ” 

She told the Department she “ ‘is allowed to drink when she 

wants as alcohol is legal.’ ” The report noted mother admitted 

she did not always call in for her drug testing and claimed she

did not know a missed test was considered a positive test. She 
7

was resistant to suggestions to improve her “ ‘calling in rate.’ ” 

Mother missed her October 20 and November 6 drug tests.

The Department was concerned that, if mother did not 

adequately address domestic violence issues, the cycle likely 

would continue and lead mother to engage in another domestic 

violence relationship. The Department also was concerned that 

mother’s yet-to-be addressed substance abuse issues impacted 

her ability “to be fully present for her children and address 

the trauma and underlying issues for why the family came 

to the attention of the Court.” The Department noted mother’s 

failure to address her substance abuse issues was of “further 

concern” given M.C.’s behavioral issues and the twins’ delays. 

At this time, M.C. again was living with mother.6

4. Adjudication hearing

The juvenile court convened the combined jurisdiction and 

disposition hearing for A.J. and E.J. on November 23 and 24, 

2020.7 Mother testified at the hearing. She admitted she 

occasionally drank alcohol, but said she had not had any since 

the case opened. She did not believe she had a substance abuse 

issue. Mother said she drank socially before the case opened, 

usually wine at the end of the day after the twins were in bed.

6 In August, S.C. had brought M.C. to mother’s for a visit.

M.C. left mother’s home for a few days, but returned. S.C. 

no longer wanted M.C. to live with him.

7 Because M.C. had left mother’s home again, and her 

whereabouts were unknown, the juvenile court continued M.C.’s 

portion of the adjudication hearing. It also held in abeyance 

the allegations under section 300, subdivision (j) as to A.J. 

and E.J. based on mother’s conduct toward M.C.
8

Mother testified she did not drink every day, but “here and 

there,” if she felt like she might want some wine with dinner 

or while watching a movie. She said she did not drink while 

caring for the children. She clarified she drinks wine with dinner 

when the twins are sleeping but is the only adult home. Mother 

denied smoking marijuana. She said she ate a marijuana 

brownie when her cousin opened a dispensary about a month 

before the Department became involved, but had not had any 

edibles since then.

Mother admitted she missed drug tests. She said the 

missed tests were due to the testing facility’s closure for about 

two months during the pandemic lockdown, but then admitted

she did not call in daily as ordered. Rather, she called in 

when she remembered or if she had time. Mother said she 

had been calling daily since August or September after following 

a suggestion to call the night before to see if she had to test

the next day.

Mother testified she learned father was using drugs when 

she was pregnant. She also described the shooting incident: 

after mother did not allow father to see the twins, who were 

in bed, he fired a gun from outside the house through mother’s 

window and shot into the air on the side of the house.

Mother’s counsel argued the court should dismiss the 

substance abuse allegations as mother had had only one low-level 

positive test for marijuana at the beginning of the case. Counsel 

acknowledged mother had missed some testing, but noted mother 

had her own business and was busy providing for her family.

Counsel argued it was “not unusual or neglectful for a single 

mother to enjoy a glass of wine after her children are asleep every 

now and then, and if mother really had an issue with substances
9

[she would not be] regularly communicating with the Department 

and willing to test.”

Minors’ counsel noted discrepancies between M.C.’s 

and mother’s statements about whether mother had smoked 

marijuana before the dependency case opened and argued 

mother’s credibility was at issue. The Department’s counsel 

noted mother had missed 16 drug tests despite the Department 

and family preservation having attempted to help mother 

remember to call.

The court sustained the substance abuse allegations 

against mother. The court noted “[p]art of the condition of 

release of the children to the mother was ongoing drug testing 

so that the court could ensure that she was not continuing to 

abuse substances.” The court described mother’s testimony about 

her testing as “quite telling to the court when she basically . . . 

indicated that she tested when she had time or when it was 

convenient . . . for her to do so.” The court found mother’s 

attitude toward testing showed she did not understand the 

reasons why the conditions were put in place for the children 

to remain in her care, demonstrating a nexus between her 

substance abuse and risk of harm to the children. The court 

also sustained the domestic violence allegations against both 

parents and the drug abuse allegations against father, but 

dismissed the allegations relating to mother’s mental health.

At disposition, the court ordered mother to complete a 

six-month minimum full drug and alcohol program with weekly 

testing and a 12-step program;

8 participate in a domestic violence 

8 Mother objected through counsel to this component of her 

case plan.
10

support group for victims; and attend individual counseling. The 

court noted mother had completed a parenting course. The twins 

were to remain in mother’s custody. Mother timely appealed.

5. Post-appeal events

On May 24, 2021, during the pendency of this appeal,

the juvenile court found “those conditions which would justify 

the initial assumption of jurisdiction [over A.J. and E.J.] . . . no 

longer exist and are not likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn 

and the Court terminates [its] jurisdiction.” On May 27, 2021, 

the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over A.J. and E.J. 

and issued a final juvenile custody order granting mother sole 

legal and physical custody of the twins and father monitored 

visits—only at the paternal grandmother’s home—after his 

release from custody.9 The order does not require mother 

to participate in any services.

On September 9, 2021, we asked the parties to provide 

additional briefing as to why this appeal should not be dismissed 

as moot, and whether mother was still required to participate 

in a drug and alcohol program as ordered on November 24, 2020, 

given the court’s termination of its jurisdiction. The Department 

and mother filed responsive letter briefs. We permitted mother 

to file a request for judicial notice of documents filed post-appeal

in the current dependency matter and in M.C.’s pending 

dependency matter and permitted the Department to file 

a letter brief in response.

9 On September 9, 2021, we granted the Department’s 

request for judicial notice of the juvenile court’s May 24 and 27, 

2021 minute orders and May 27, 2021 juvenile custody order.
11

We now take judicial notice of the Department’s second 

amended petition filed February 11, 2021, and the juvenile 

court’s May 17, 2021 jurisdictional and dispositional order, both

filed in M.C.’s pending dependency matter. (Evid. Code, § 452, 

subd. (d).) Mother contends the orders she challenges in this 

appeal affect the May 17, 2021 orders as to M.C., entered after 

the juvenile court partially sustained the second amended 

petition. We decline to take judicial notice of the Department’s 

February 16, 2021 detention report filed in M.C.’s matter, 

however, as it is irrelevant to whether mother’s appeal from the 

jurisdictional finding and dispositional order in A.J. and E.J.’s 

case is moot. We similarly decline to take judicial notice of the 

Department’s May 5, 2021 status review report of A.J. and E.J.’s 

case—it is irrelevant considering the court has terminated its 

jurisdiction over them.

DISCUSSION

“As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court 

jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the 

dependency proceeding moot.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 

1481, 1488.) “[T]he critical factor in considering whether a 

dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can 

provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error.” (In re 

N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60.) Dismissal of a dependency 

appeal for mootness following termination of jurisdiction “is not 

automatic,” however, “but ‘must be decided on a case-by-case 

basis.’ ” (C.C., at p. 1488.) A reviewing court may exercise its 

discretion to reach the merits of a challenged jurisdictional 

finding if the finding: (1) “serves as the basis for dispositional 

orders that are also challenged on appeal”; (2) “could be 

prejudicial to the appellant or could impact the current or 
12

any future dependency proceedings”; or (3) “could have 

consequences for the appellant beyond jurisdiction.” (In re 

A.R. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1150; accord, In re Drake M.

(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.)

Here, mother challenges both the jurisdictional finding that 

she was a substance abuser and the dispositional order requiring 

her to complete a full drug and alcohol program. We can give 

mother no effective relief. Mother did not challenge the court’s 

jurisdictional findings based on her failure to protect or on 

father’s conduct; thus, a reversal of the substance abuse finding 

would not result in a reversal of the juvenile court’s assertion of 

jurisdiction over A.J. and E.J. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 

773 [“ ‘reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding 

of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases 

for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported 

by substantial evidence’ ”; it “ ‘need not consider whether any 

or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction 

are supported by the evidence’ ”].) Nor would reversal of the 

substance abuse finding mandate reversal of the challenged 

disposition order. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 

1492 (I.A.) [“[a] jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of 

a particular parent is not necessary for the court to enter orders 

binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been 

established”].) Moreover, because the juvenile court terminated 

its jurisdiction over the twins and entered a final juvenile 

custody order, the November 24, 2020 disposition order

has been superseded and no longer adversely affects mother. 

(Heidi S. v. David H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1165 [juvenile 

court “exit order ‘shall be a final judgment and shall remain 
13

in effect after [the juvenile court’s] jurisdiction is terminated’ ”].) 

A reversal of that order thus would have no practical effect.

Mother nevertheless contends the substance abuse finding 

“could have damaging consequences for [her] in any family law 

matter as related to custody and visitation.” Mother’s contention 

is highly speculative. The juvenile court entered a juvenile 

custody order granting mother sole legal and physical custody 

of A.J. and E.J. and limited father to monitored visitation. That 

order is virtually identical to the custody order entered in 2018. 

Mother’s custody and visitation rights, therefore, have not been 

hampered by the earlier substance abuse finding. (See § 362.4, 

subd. (b) [juvenile court custody and visitation orders “shall 

continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent order 

of the superior court”].) Thus, even if the jurisdictional finding 

is unfounded, mother faces “no threatened prejudice” from it. 

(I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1495; cf. In re Joshua C. (1994) 

24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1546, 1548 [parent’s appeal not rendered 

moot by termination of jurisdiction where restrictions to parent’s 

custody and visitation in juvenile custody order were based on 

challenged jurisdictional finding].)

In her supplemental brief, mother also contends the 

court’s substance abuse finding continues to adversely affect 

her in M.C.’s dependency case. She argues the juvenile court 

again ordered her to participate in a “totally unwarranted”

comprehensive drug and alcohol program as part of her case plan 

in M.C.’s matter based on its earlier jurisdictional finding and

dispositional order in the twins’ matter. As the Department 

contends, a reversal of the November 24, 2020 order, which 

is no longer in effect, will not practically affect the case plan 

implemented in M.C.’s matter on May 17, 2021. 
14

The juvenile court separately adjudicated M.C. a dependent 

based on a second amended petition filed after the court declared

A.J. and E.J. dependents. As mother notes, the second amended 

petition includes an allegation about mother’s mental health—

dismissed from the first amended petition—and includes the 

same substance abuse allegations the juvenile court sustained 

as one of the bases for exercising its jurisdiction over the twins. 

According to the juvenile court’s May 17, 2021 minute order, 

the court dismissed those allegations in M.C.’s case, however. 

It sustained the petition concerning M.C., as to mother, based 

only on the allegations it had continued at the adjudication 

hearing for the twins—that mother had excluded M.C. from 

the home without providing for her supervision.10

Mother speculates the court’s disposition order in M.C.’s 

case requiring mother to participate in a full drug and alcohol 

program, 12-step program, and drug testing could have been 

based only on the court’s earlier jurisdictional finding and 

dispositional order that she currently challenges. She thus 

argues the issues she presents in this appeal are not moot 

because they have “infect[ed] the outcome of subsequent 

proceedings.” (In re Dylan T. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 769, 

cited by mother.)

We disagree. First, even if we were to reverse the 

jurisdictional finding, mother’s conduct and circumstances 

relating to the underlying substance abuse allegations would 

still be in the Department’s reports and before the juvenile court. 

10 As mother notes, the court also sustained allegations added 

to the second amended petition against M.C.’s father S.C.
15

(See, e.g., In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 329-330 

[substance of a spanking allegation (only allegation supporting 

parent being an active perpetrator of abuse) “would almost 

certainly be available in any future dependency or family court 

proceeding, regardless of any determination on our part as 

to whether it formed an independent basis for juvenile court 

jurisdiction”].) Moreover, the court’s “past jurisdictional finding” 

would have been “entitled to no weight in establishing 

jurisdiction, even assuming it was admissible for that purpose. 

Instead, the agency [would have been] required to demonstrate 

jurisdiction by presenting evidence of then current circumstances 

placing the minor at risk. Other relevant dependency findings 

similarly would require evidence of present detriment, based 

on the then prevailing circumstances of parent and child.” 

(I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1495.) Thus, the challenged 

substance abuse finding and related dispositional orders alone

could not have led to the court’s findings and orders entered 

six months later in M.C.’s case. Therefore, their reversal would 

not oblige us to reverse the May 2021 order requiring mother 

to attend a drug and alcohol program.11 That order was based 

on the current circumstances of mother and M.C.—a teenager 

11 In her letter brief, mother nevertheless urges us to “fashion 

a remedy to immediately relieve her of any further obligations to 

participate in any drug and alcohol program imposed” in M.C.’s 

matter. The propriety of the juvenile court’s disposition order 

in M.C.’s case is not currently before us. Mother’s appeal from 

that order—appellate case number B313248—is pending. We 

will address mother’s contentions as to why the order was an 

abuse of discretion under those circumstances when that case 

is ready for our review.
16

with whom mother had a difficult relationship—which 

necessarily included events that unfolded after the juvenile 

court made its November 2020 orders as to mother’s then threeyear-old twins. Accordingly, there is no continuing adverse order 

against mother dependent upon the validity of the November 

2020 jurisdictional findings or dispositional order.

As “there remains no effective relief we could give [mother] 

beyond” what she already has obtained, we decline to exercise 

our discretion to review the challenged jurisdictional finding and

dispositional order. (In re N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 62.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

LAVIN, Acting P. J. MATTHEWS, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.