In re Xi.L. CA2/5

Filed 1/20/26 In re Xi.L. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Xi.L. et al., Persons Coming B344943 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. AND FAMILY SERVICES, No. 18CCJP07882B-G)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nancy Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed. Jacob I. Olson, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mother A.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s March 12, 2025 dispositional orders removing her six youngest children, born between 2017 and January 2023, from her custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3611 and requiring her to submit to a psychological evaluation under Evidence Code 730. We affirm the court’s orders removing minors from mother’s custody and dismiss as moot the portion of mother’s appeal challenging the orders requiring her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother has a total of 12 children. The oldest six are no longer in her custody, but rather are either under a legal guardianship or in the custody of relatives. We use the term “minors” in this opinion to refer to mother’s six youngest children, who are the only children at issue in this appeal. Five of the six minors share the same father, D.L., and the youngest, is the son of mother’s boyfriend, S.S. When the current case started, minors remained in mother’s custody, under court supervision. The court sustained petition allegations that minors were at risk of harm based on S.S.’s acts of domestic violence against mother, and mother’s failure to protect. The Department asked the court to order a mental health evaluation, along with other services, for mother. At the disposition hearing in February 2024, the court ordered family maintenance services, including parenting and individual