In re A.P. CA2/5

Filed 4/29/25 In re A.P. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.P. et al., Persons Coming B336189 c/w B340848 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 24CCJP00569A-B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gabriela H. Shapiro, Temporary Judge. Dismissed. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A.P. (mother) filed two separate appeals from orders pertaining to her custody of and visitation with her two children (minors), who were born in 2017 and 2021. The appealed orders were made after the juvenile court sustained petition allegations against mother and father under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).1 Mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional findings or its disposition order insofar as it removed minors from parental custody. In case B336189, mother contends the juvenile court erred at the disposition hearing when it ordered monitored visits over her objection. In case B340848, mother contends the court erred at the six-month review hearing when it found a substantial risk of detriment if minors were returned to mother’s custody.2 The Department filed a request for judicial notice and a motion to dismiss both appeals as moot because minors had been returned to parental custody. We granted the request for judicial notice and ordered the Department to file a respondent’s brief, deferring the motion to dismiss to be determined by the merits panel. We briefly review the procedural history of the underlying