In re A.R. CA2/5

Filed 2/6/14 In re A.R. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.R., et al., Persons Coming Under B249881 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK92821)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEALS from the judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carlos E. Vazquez, Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. M. Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________

G.O. (mother) appeals from the May 22, 2013 orders sustaining petition allegations as to her children, A.R. and L.R., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),1 and removing them from her physical custody under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). We affirm the jurisdictional findings and dismiss as moot mother’s appeal of the removal order.

FACTS

The Department of Children and Family Services (Department) originally filed a petition on April 21, 2012, seeking to have A.R. declared a dependent based on repeated incidents of domestic violence between mother and M.R. (father). The petition alleged that A.R. was at substantial risk of harm based on incidents taking place on December 14, 2011, February 18, 2012, and March 4, 2012. On May 10, 2012, the court sustained amended allegations under subdivision (b) of section 300 and placed A.R. with mother, who was to receive family maintenance services. The court ordered services and monitored visitation for father but specified that mother could not be the monitor for father’s visits. While pregnant with a second child, mother successfully completed a domestic violence program and participated in parenting support groups, as well as individual counseling. Father did not comply with court-ordered services and repeatedly failed to appear for random drug testing. He informed the Department that he uses marijuana on a regular basis. He did not visit A.R. In October 2012, mother stated she no longer desired to be in a relationship with father and is prepared to raise her children as a single mother. Mother’s second child, L.R., was born in November 2012. On November 9, 2012, the court ordered continued maintenance services for mother and identified termination of jurisdiction as the goal of the dependency proceeding.