In re A.J. CA2/2

Filed 3/25/26 In re A.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re A.J. et al., Persons Coming B343593 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24CCJP03159A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Cathy J. Ostiller, Judge. Affirmed.

Heather Tesdahl, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________________

In this juvenile dependency appeal, A.W. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s sole jurisdictional finding pertaining to her. In particular, mother argues substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that she put her children, A.J. (daughter) and I.J. (son), at risk by failing to protect them from their father’s domestic violence against her. After mother filed her appeal, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and granted sole physical custody of the children to mother and joint legal custody to the parents. Thus, as an initial matter we address whether mother’s appeal is moot. Although we determine it is, we exercise our discretion to consider it on the merits nonetheless. We conclude substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional finding pertaining to mother and affirm. BACKGROUND This is not the first time this case has come before us. Although mother and father both appealed the juvenile court’s November 18, 2024 orders, we considered father’s appeal first. Father did not challenge the jurisdictional findings pertaining to him. Rather, he challenged the court’s removal and visitation orders. In a nonpublished opinion, we affirmed the juvenile court’s November 18, 2024 orders removing the children from father. We dismissed as moot father’s challenge to the court’s