In re Aurora S. CA2/8

Filed 5/3/23 In re Aurora S. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re AURORA S. et al., Persons B314602 Coming Under the Juvenile Court (Consol. w/B320081) Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Los Angeles County AND FAMILY SERVICES, Super. Ct. Nos. 19CCJP04242A–B

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip L. Soto, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Janelle B. Price, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. **********

Mother D.S. (Mother), the appellant, has two children, Aurora, a 16-year-old, and Austin, a 14-year-old, who are the subject of this appeal. On July 3, 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions b(1) and (j) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. DCFS alleged that (1) Mother had a limited ability to care for the children as both children presented with unique behavioral challenges, and (2) Mother left the children without supervision. All further references to statutory provisions will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code. On July 5, 2019, the trial court detained the children from Mother. On August 29, 2019, the trial court found a basis for jurisdiction and sustained the allegation that Mother had a limited ability to care for the children. The court ordered that the children be removed from Mother’s care, and ordered that Mother was to have monitored visits with the children. The trial court also ordered that Mother was to complete reunification services. On February 27, 2020, at the six-month review hearing, Mother retained private counsel and the court relieved appointed counsel from representing Mother. The court found that Mother’s progress regarding her reunification services had not been substantial, and ordered that the children were to remain in placement. On August 27, 2020, at the 12-month review hearing, the court found that Mother was in partial compliance with her case plan. The trial court did not return the children to Mother’s care at the twelve-month review. On December 4, 2020, Mother filed the first of three Request to Change Court Order, which is also known as a “388