In re J.M. CA2/5

Filed 5/15/24 In re J.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.M., et al., Persons Coming B329645 Under Juvenile Court Law. _______________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Ct. No. 23CCJP00562A-B) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nancy A. Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed. Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________

J.M. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order exerting jurisdiction over her son, its dispositional order removing her daughter from her custody, and its finding of no reason to believe that the daughter was an “Indian child” within the meaning of the Indian Child and Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We decline to address the merits of mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s removal order and ICWA finding, which are moot issues in light of the daughter’s return to mother’s care.1 We affirm the juvenile court’s order exerting jurisdiction over the son. FACTS PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother has two children at issue in this appeal—son (born 2008), and daughter (born 2012). Each has a different father. Mother and daughter’s father (father) have been involved in two prior dependency proceedings due to their domestic violence, mother's alcohol abuse, and father's use of methamphetamine. In each of those prior proceedings, daughter was released to mother’s custody. Son has lived with his father (nonoffending) at all relevant times consistent with a custody order granting him sole physical custody with visits for mother. Although a court had ordered mother not to bring daughter’s father to mother’s visits with son, mother disregarded that instruction, resulting in the requirement that a professional monitor be present for visits. Mother has called the police on multiple occasions to make false reports that son was suicidal and home alone and that his father was not feeding him. She has also called the police when son “did not respond to her messages.” Mother sometimes sends son “long