In re E.L. CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2022B311592California3,865 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chavez, J.

BACKGROUND

In addition to E.L. and Z.L., mother has three older children, Jorge (born 2004), Oscar (born 2007) and Angel (born

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. E.L. and Z.L. are sometimes referred to collectively as the twins. While this appeal was pending, mother filed, on July 19, 2021, a second section 388 petition requesting return of the children to her custody, or alternatively, reinstatement of reunification services. On September 22, 2021, the juvenile court granted that petition in part and reinstated mother’s reunification services. The juvenile court’s September 22, 2021 order is not at issue in this appeal. Mother contends the juvenile court’s September 22, 2021 order does not moot this appeal because the children were not returned to her custody and because she was denied reunification services from March 24, 2021, through September 23, 2021.

2 2009),4 who are not subjects of this appeal. Mother was also pregnant with her sixth child at the time of the hearing on her section 388 petition. Child welfare history In 2015, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.