In re B.A. CA2/3

── In re B.A. CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 In re B.A. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE In re B.A. et al., Persons Coming B346601 Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. Nos. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 24CCJP00479A, AND FAMILY SERVICES, 24CCJP00479B, 24CCJP00479C Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.A., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Davis, Judge. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________  Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s orders made at the 12-month review hearing as to her three children. She argues the court erred when it (1) found the children would be at substantial risk of detriment if returned to mother and ordered they remain in their placement; and (2) found the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) had provided mother with reasonable services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21.1 As the children have since been returned to mother’s custody, we conclude mother’s appeal as to the court’s suitable placement order is moot. We conclude substantial evidence supported the court’s reasonable services finding and affirm the court’s orders. BACKGROUND 1. The family The family consists of mother, father (who is not a party to this appeal), and their three children B.A. (born in 2011), M.A. (born in 2013), and J.A. (born in 2015). Parents are not married and live in separate homes in Apple Valley, a town in San Bernardino County. Mother was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder when she was 18 and has a history of mental health hospitalizations. The family has a prior child welfare history. In May 2013, the juvenile court in San Bernardino County sustained a dependency petition finding B.A. was at substantial risk of neglect and harm due to mother having a mental health condition that interfered with her ability to care for the child. That court terminated its jurisdiction in September 2014 and issued a family 1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. 2 law order granting mother sole physical custody of B.A. and M.A. and both parents legal custody. Over the years, several reports of general neglect were made about the family that were deemed unfounded or inconclusive. 2. Section 300 petition On February 13, 2024, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the three children, who were staying with their adult half-sibling April and her husband Aaron in Los Angeles county. The petition alleged parents had medically neglected and failed to provide the children with regular education instruction, and mother was incapable of providing regular care and supervision of the children due to: her history of mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder; her symptoms of depression, para