Filed 5/15/24 In re J.M. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

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

Under Juvenile Court Law.

_______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B329645

 (Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 23CCJP00562A-B)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Nancy A. Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed.

Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

J.M. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order exerting 

jurisdiction over her son, its dispositional order removing her 

daughter from her custody, and its finding of no reason to believe 

that the daughter was an “Indian child” within the meaning of 

the Indian Child and Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)

(ICWA). We decline to address the merits of mother’s challenge 

to the juvenile court’s removal order and ICWA finding, which 

are moot issues in light of the daughter’s return to mother’s care.1

We affirm the juvenile court’s order exerting jurisdiction over the 

son. 

FACTS PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother has two children at issue in this appeal—son (born 

2008), and daughter (born 2012). Each has a different father. 

Mother and daughter’s father (father) have been involved 

in two prior dependency proceedings due to their domestic 

violence, mother's alcohol abuse, and father's use of 

methamphetamine. In each of those prior proceedings, daughter 

was released to mother’s custody. 

Son has lived with his father (nonoffending) at all relevant 

times consistent with a custody order granting him sole physical 

custody with visits for mother. Although a court had ordered 

mother not to bring daughter’s father to mother’s visits with son, 

mother disregarded that instruction, resulting in the requirement 

that a professional monitor be present for visits. Mother has

called the police on multiple occasions to make false reports that

son was suicidal and home alone and that his father was not 

feeding him. She has also called the police when son “did not 

respond to her messages.” Mother sometimes sends son “long 

1 We grant mother’s request for judicial notice of the juvenile 

court’s minute order dated April 15, 2024. 
3

messages speaking negatively about his father,” and he reported 

participating in visits with mother because “he wants to avoid 

issues with [her].”

In December 2022, mother struck daughter’s mouth. In the 

past, mother has also struck daughter with sandals and belts, 

pushed her to the ground, and caused bruises to her back. 

Daughter reported that mother is “mean to her for no reason” and 

“hits her often.” 

In early January 2023, mother repeatedly punched father’s 

face and hit him with a car, all in daughter’s presence (although 

daughter did not see the car hit father). 

On February 14, 2023, the Department of Children and 

Family Services (the Department) filed a petition asking the 

juvenile court to exert jurisdiction over then 14-year-old son and 

10-year-old daughter based on allegations that mother and father 

have a history of engaging in domestic violence in daughter’s 

presence and mother physically abused daughter, rendering 

jurisdiction appropriate under Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and, as to son, (j). 

At the detention hearing on February 15, 2023, the juvenile 

court ordered both children detained from mother and father, 

with mother to have visits with each child three times per week. 

Son remained where he had been, with his father. Daughter was 

initially placed with son’s father, but was placed with paternal 

aunt a few days later. 

When the Department interviewed mother on March 9, 

2023, mother expressed concern that the Department was only

asking about daughter, and not son—who mother claimed was 

“struggling psychologically.” Mother reported that “she wanted 

to keep [son] on the case because she wanted to reunify with him 
4

since she was already going to complete court orders.” Mother 

denied having a history of domestic violence with father, stating 

they had never had any incidents. She also reported not knowing 

why the Department was involved with her family. And she 

denied ever hitting daughter, or hitting father’s face and striking 

him with her car on January 3, 2023. 

After the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on 

April 13, 2023, the juvenile court sustained the allegations,

2

removed daughter from both parents, ordered that son remain in 

his father’s custody, and terminated jurisdiction over son upon 

the juvenile court’s receipt of the juvenile custody order (filed 

April 18, 2023). The court ordered monitored visits for mother 

and father with daughter, and monitored visits with son for 

mother, to be monitored by a professional monitor at mother’s 

expense. The court also ordered reunification services for 

mother, including domestic violence for perpetrators and 

parenting classes. 

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in exerting 

jurisdiction over son, in removing daughter from her custody, and 

in finding no reason to believe that ICWA applied to daughter. 

We decline to consider the latter two issues, which are moot in 

view of daughter’s return to mother’s care. 

Mother’s jurisdictional challenge also appears to be moot 

given that the court terminated jurisdiction over son almost as 

soon as it found such jurisdiction, and mother has not pointed to 

any legal or practical consequences that are capable of redress. 

2 The juvenile court sustained some of the allegations as 

amended, but those amendments are not pertinent here. 
5

(In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 277.) We nonetheless exercise 

our discretion to reach the merits of mother’s challenge, 

particularly given that the Department did not raise mootness in 

its respondent’s brief. (Id. at p. 282.) We review a juvenile 

court’s finding of dependency jurisdiction for substantial 

evidence, asking whether the record—when viewed as a whole 

and drawing all inferences in support of the court’s finding—

contains “ ‘ “sufficient facts to support [that] finding.” ’ ” (In re 

I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).) 

Mother argues the juvenile court erred in exerting 

jurisdiction over son because son “was unaware of the 

circumstances of this case,” lived with his father, and was neither 

physically abused nor exposed to domestic violence. Under 

subdivision (j) of section 300,3 the juvenile court may exercise 

jurisdiction over a child if: “The child’s sibling has been abused 

or neglected, as defined in subdivision (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. The court shall 

consider the circumstances surrounding the 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 of the parent 

or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative 

in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.” 

(§ 300, subd, (j).) Subdivision (j) of section 300 “ ‘does not state 

that its application is limited to the risk that the child will be 

abused or neglected as defined in the same subdivision that 

describes the abuse or neglect of the sibling.’ ” (In re I.J., supra,

56 Cal.4th at p. 774.) Thus, subdivision (j) may be sustained if 

3 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare 

and Institutions Code.
6

the sibling of an abused child is at risk of abuse or neglect as set 

forth in subdivision (i), which provides: “The child has been 

subjected to an act or acts of cruelty by the parent . . . .” (§ 300, 

subd. (i).) 

Mother does not challenge any of the jurisdictional findings

as they concern daughter, including its finding that mother and 

father’s history of domestic violence and mother’s physical abuse 

of daughter “endanger[] [daughter’s] physical health and safety.” 

Substantial evidence also supports the juvenile court’s exercise of 

jurisdiction over son. The record shows a certain unpredictability 

in mother’s behavior—she hit father with her car because she 

was upset at him for “parking in the wrong spot.” Daughter 

reported that mother was “mean to her for no reason” and “hits 

her randomly.” Daughter also explained that on one occasion 

when she “was joking around with mother,” mother “became 

upset and . . . slapped her on the mouth.” What is more, mother 

has refused to recognize her problematic behavior. She has 

denied ever hitting father or daughter, stated she does not know

why the Department is involved with her family, and explained 

that she “does not need to participate in any services because she 

and . . . father get along well.” (See In re A.F. (2016) 

3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [denial is a relevant factor for 

determining whether a person is likely to modify behavior 

without court supervision].) 

Although son has resided with his father at all relevant 

times, suggesting that son is not necessarily in grave danger of 

physical harm, jurisdiction under section 300 subdivision (j) is 

appropriate if son is at risk of being subjected to “acts of cruelty” 

by his mother within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (i). 

(In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 774 [subdivision (j) does not 
7

confine risk that the child will be abused or neglected to the same 

subdivision that describes the abuse or neglect of the sibling].) 

The Legislature did not define “acts of cruelty” “due to the myriad 

forms such conduct may take.” (In re N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520, 

548.) 

On multiple occasions, mother has called the police to make 

false reports about son’s wellbeing. As recently as October 2022, 

mother called the police to falsely report that son was suicidal

and home alone. Mother sometimes sends son long and 

“inappropriate” text messages speaking negatively about son’s 

father. Mother’s unpredictability, her physical abuse of daughter

and violence against father, and her harmful behavior of making 

false police reports concerning son and sending him inappropriate 

texts, together comprise a substantial basis for finding that son is 

at risk of being subjected to "an act of cruelty” by mother. (See In 

re D.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1015 [finding act of cruelty 

does not require proof that parent intended harm].) 

Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

exercise of jurisdiction over son under subdivision (j) of section 

300, we decline to address whether the evidence also supports 

jurisdiction under subdivisions (a) and (b). (In re Alexis E. (2009) 

171 Cal.App.4th 438, 45 [we may affirm the juvenile court’s 

exertion of jurisdiction if substantial evidence supports any one of 

the statutory bases alleged in the petition].)

4

4 It is also worth noting that mother told the Department on 

March 9, 2023, that she was worried about son because he was 

“struggling psychologically,” and that “she wanted to keep [him] 

in the case because she wanted to reunify with him since she was 

already going to complete court orders.”
8

DISPOSITION

We affirm the juvenile court’s order exerting jurisdiction 

over son. 

LEE, J.*

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, Acting P. J.

KIM, J.

 Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, 

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

the California Constitution.