Full Opinion

Filed 10/28/26 In re J.L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.L., a Person Coming B350526 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 20CCJP04556 AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.J., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Dismissed. A.J., in pro per; and Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ In April 2024, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) got a call that 15- year-old J.L. and her mother were fighting. The mother repeatedly hit J.L. until her adult brother Jaquan intervened. The mother pulled a knife on Jaquan and threatened to stab him. Jaquan, J.L. and their five minor siblings fled the house. This was not the first time the Department had heard about this family. The record shows at least 19 referrals to the Department alleging physical abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect. Most of the referrals were determined to be inconclusive, but at least three allegations were substantiated. Shortly after the Department started this case, the juvenile court removed J.L. and her five minor siblings from their mother’s custody after sustaining allegations that the mother physically abused J.L. and her siblings were at risk of serious harm. The court placed the children with non-related extended family member LaShawn W., who is the mother’s godmother. The mother objected to the children’s placement with LaShawn W., with whom she had a strained relationship. At the jurisdiction hearing in July 2024, the Department, the mother, and the children reached a settlement whereby the mother pleaded no contest to the Department’s allegations that the mother’s conduct endangered the six children and placed them at risk of serious physical harm and the Department dismissed the remaining allegations. After confirming the mother understood the agreement and reviewed it with her lawyer, the court found the mother freely and voluntarily made her plea and that there was a factual and legal basis for it. 2 Based on the plea and evidence, the court found that the allegations were true, that Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 described the children, and that it would be detrimental to return the children to the mother. The court ordered family reunification services for the mother and children and monitored visitation for the mother. A Department social worker spoke to the children in August 2024. J.L. and her two older siblings, who were 17-year- old twins, told the social worker they did not want to visit the mother. J.L.’s three younger siblings were ambivalent about seeing the mother, but agreed to go on monitored visits with her. All children reported feeling safe with Lashawn W. and liked staying with her. For her part, the mother completed substance abuse treatment in September 2024 and began individual counseling. She participated in several monitored visits with her three youngest children over the next few months, which went well. However, the three older children continued to refuse to see the mother. In its January 2025 status review report, the Department recommended the children remain dependents of the court, continue reunification services for the mother as for the three younger children, and terminate reunification services between the mother and the three older children. At the status review hearing, the court found the mother had made substantial progress and continued reunification services for the mother. By June 2025, the three youngest children had moved back in with the mother, while the three oldest children remained with LaShawn W. and maintained their refusal to see the mother. 3 In July 2025, the court terminated jurisdiction as to the three youngest children and granted sole custody to the mother. As for the older children, the court terminated reunification services, noting their consistent refusal to engage with the mother. The court observed the two oldest were about to turn 18 and wished to become non-minor dependents. For J.L., the court set a permanency planning hearing, with the plan of LaShawn W. becoming J.L.’s legal guardian. The Department filed its permanent planning report in October 2025. Therein, it noted LaShawn W. had provided a safe, stable, and loving home for J.L. and her siblings, and that she and J.L. agreed about moving forward with legal guardianship. At the permanency planning hearing, the mother objected to appointing LaShawn W. as J.L’s legal guardian and asked the court to reinstate reunification services between herself and J.L. After hearing argument from all parties and testimony from the mother, the court found it was in J.L’s best interest to grant guardianship to LaShawn W. and signed an order appointing LaShawn W. as J.L’s legal guardian. The mother appealed these findings and orders. Her court-appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.) saying the attorney could find no colorable arguments. Counsel informed the mother of this fact and of our discretion to allow her to file a brief. Counsel also made the record available to the mother. The mother filed a supplemental brief, expressing dissatisfaction with her court-appointed lawyers, accusing the Department of fabricating documents, and denying that she ever hurt her children. She also attached letters showing she had 4 completed drug treatment programs and received individual counseling. We presume an appealed judgment is correct. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Appellants bear the burden of establishing error. Where they do not do so, we may dismiss the appeal. (Ibid.) Unlike in a criminal case, we have no duty to conduct an independent review of the record. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–843.) The mother presents no arguable issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s findings and orders. There are no other arguable issues. We therefore dismiss her appeal. (See id. at p. 846.) DISPOSITION We dismiss the appeal. WILEY, Acting P. J. We concur: VIRAMONTES, J. SCHERB, J. 5