In re M.L. CA1/2

Filed 1/14/21 In re M.L. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re M.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, A159357; A160380 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J43812) T.L., Defendant and Appellant.

BY THE COURT: Both of these appeals arise out of dependency proceedings for seven- year-old M.L., whose mother is appellant T.L. (Mother). On December 21, 2018, respondent Solano County Health and Social Services Department (Department) filed a petition on behalf of M.L. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).1 At a February 2019 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered M.L. removed from Mother’s custody and granted her father custody under the supervision of the court pursuant to section 361.2, subdivision (a). The juvenile court also ordered reunification services for Mother.

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

A six-month review hearing took place in November 2019, and on December 3, the juvenile court found that dependency jurisdiction was justified, denied Mother’s request that M.L. be returned to her custody, and ordered family maintenance and reunification services to continue. Mother appealed that order (A159357), contending that the evidence at the hearing showed that it was in M.L.’s best interest to be returned to her custody, and asking this court to “reverse the order of the juvenile court denying [M.L.] be returned to her Mother’s care.” In May of 2020, while that first appeal was pending, a twelve-month review took place at which the juvenile court awarded joint legal and physical custody to both parents—summers with Mother in Arizona, and the school year with M.L.’s father in California. The juvenile court then terminated dependency jurisdiction. Mother appealed (A160380), contending that the juvenile court’s joint custody order was an abuse of discretion and asking that we reverse and order instead that full custody be awarded to Mother. On June 16, the Department moved to dismiss the appeal in A159357, arguing that it was moot because Mother had already been granted joint custody at the May 2020 hearing. We denied the motion without prejudice to raising the issue in the Department’s brief, which had not yet been filed. On August 7, Mother filed an application for an emergency order, seeking to modify the existing custody and visitation order to grant her sole custody. The request was heard at an ex parte hearing on August 11. According to a declaration filed with her application, Mother informed M.L.’s father of the hearing by text message but he was not present. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court granted Mother’s application and ordered that Mother have sole physical and legal custody of M.L.