In re C.K. CA 2/5

Filed 3/15/23 In re C.K. CA 2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.K. et al., Persons Coming B313536 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. DK22840A-C) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.Q.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mother appeals from the denial of her latest Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions, filed two and a half years after reunification services were terminated.1 At the time of filing, her oldest child, who we refer to as “daughter,” was two months shy of adulthood, and her younger children had been in guardianships for years. We conclude that as to daughter, her appeal is moot because daughter is now an adult. As to the two younger children, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision to deny mother’s petitions without a hearing. The juvenile court acted within its discretion in finding that mother’s recent, brief sobriety, considered in the context of her years-long drug abuse, did not constitute changed circumstances. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Removal and Jurisdiction Mother has three children, born August 2003, January 2011, and March 2014. In June 2017, the court sustained jurisdiction over the children under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), based on mother’s domestic violence in front of the children, her extensive history of substance abuse, and her current use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, and marijuana. As part of her reunification services, the court ordered mother to complete a six-month inpatient drug program,

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless indicated otherwise.