Opinion
B327173
04-29-2024
In re R.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. D.S., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Jane Kwon, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 19CCJP05428E D. Brett Bianco, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Jane Kwon, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EGERTON, J.
Mother appeals a dependency judgment to the extent it was predicated on a jurisdictional finding that she physically abused her 12-year-old daughter R.D. In her opening brief, mother argued the appeal presented a justiciable controversy, notwithstanding other unchallenged grounds for juvenile court jurisdiction, because the physical abuse finding had been the basis for a disposition order requiring mother to participate in anger management classes as a condition to reunification. Mother has since notified this court that the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction with a home of parent order. As the termination order renders mother's appeal moot, and mother does not seek discretionary review of the physical abuse finding, we will dismiss the appeal.
Mother's request for judicial notice of the February 21, 2024 juvenile court order terminating jurisdiction is granted.
BACKGROUND
In February 2023, the juvenile court declared R.D. a dependent child, finding mother had physically abused R.D. and mother was unwilling and unable to care for the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (a) & (b).) The court also sustained a neglect count against father, finding he engaged in inappropriate discipline that endangered R.D. (Id., § 300, subd. (b).) The findings were based largely on R.D.'s report that mother struck the child with an electrical cord and mother's request to have R.D. taken into protective custody due to R.D.'s behavioral issues. The court ordered R.D. removed from the parents' custody, approved a case plan requiring mother to participate in anger management classes as a condition to reunification, and set a jurisdiction review hearing.
Father pled no contest to the count. He is not a party to this appeal.
Mother denied R.D.'s physical abuse allegations. She maintained R.D. was "real manipulative" and reported the child had a history of behavioral issues at school and at home. Mother also emphasized that she had been the one who contacted child protective services because she needed help with R.D.
After mother filed her opening brief, she submitted a request for judicial notice of a February 2024 juvenile court order terminating the court's jurisdiction and releasing R.D. to the parents' custody. The order reflects the court's finding that the conditions that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed and were not likely to exist if supervision was withdrawn. Mother also submitted a letter notifying this court that she did not intend to file a reply brief in support of her appeal.
DISCUSSION
"A court is tasked with the duty' "to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it."' [Citation.] A case becomes moot when events' "render[ ] it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to grant him any effective] relief."' [Citation.] For relief to be 'effective,' two requirements must be met. First, the plaintiff must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the plaintiff seeks. [Citation.] [¶] This rule applies in the dependency context. [Citation.] A reviewing court must' "decide on a case-by-case basis whether subsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether [its] decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding." '" (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.).)
In D.P., our Supreme Court clarified that, "[a]lthough a jurisdictional finding that a parent engaged in abuse or neglect of a child is generally stigmatizing, complaining of 'stigma' alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal. The stigma must be paired with some effect on the plaintiffs legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision," such as where a jurisdictional finding" 'has resulted in [dispositional] orders which continue to adversely affect' a parent." (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 277-278.)
"Even when a case is moot, courts may exercise their 'inherent discretion' to reach the merits of the dispute. [Citation.] As a rule, courts will generally exercise their discretion to review a moot case when 'the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur,' 'when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties,' or 'when a material question remains for the court's determination.'" (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) The court may also consider whether the challenged jurisdictional finding "is based on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct" or"' "could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction." '" (Id. at pp. 285-286.) "Ultimately, in deciding whether to exercise its discretion, a court should be guided by the overarching goals of the dependency system: 'to provide maximum safety and protection for children' with a 'focus' on 'the preservation of the family as well as the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child.'" (Id. at p. 286.)
Any effective relief from the disposition order that we could have granted mother has now been superseded by the juvenile court's order terminating jurisdiction and returning R.D. to the parents' custody. (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 278 [appeal from physical abuse finding rendered moot by subsequent order terminating dependency jurisdiction].) While we have inherent discretion to reach the merits of mother's arguments, mother does not contend discretionary review is warranted, nor has she asked that we exercise this discretion. (Cf. id. at p. 287 [remanding to Court of Appeal "to reconsider Father's argument that discretionary review is warranted in light of the principles and factors" governing such review].) Given mother's apparent desire to put the case behind her, and the lack of any pressing or novel question demanding this court's determination, we decline to exercise our discretion and dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: EDMON, P.J. LAVIN, J.