Opinion
B325301
09-25-2023
In re Gi.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. GABRIELA C., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Harrison B. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 21CCJP03122A-B, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge.
Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Harrison B.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
KIM, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Gabriela C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders as to her children Gi.C. and A.B. contending the court failed to comply with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA; Fam. Code, § 3400, et seq.). Mother also contends the court abused its discretion when it terminated jurisdiction with a custody order awarding father sole legal and physical custody of the children. We dismiss mother's appeal as moot and untimely.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Prior Appeal
In mother's prior appeal in this case (In re Gi.C. et al. (B316532, July 17, 2023) [nonpub. opn.] (In re Gi.C. I)), mother claimed the juvenile court erred by failing to comply with the UCCJEA before exercising jurisdiction over the children. The majority opinion conditionally reversed the court's jurisdiction and disposition orders and remanded the matter to permit the court to determine whether it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. (In re Gi.C. I, supra, B316532.)
Justice Moor dissented from the majority's UCCJEA holding. Mother also contended the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). The entire panel held mother's ICWA contention was moot. (In re Gi.C. I, supra, B316532.)
B. Instant Appeal
While mother's prior appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the children and entered a custody order awarding father sole legal and physical custody of the children. Mother appeals from those orders.
Although mother's notice of appeal included the order terminating jurisdiction, her appeal addresses only the custody order.
III. DISCUSSION
We requested that the parties submit supplemental letter briefs addressing whether mother's appeal is moot in light of the resolution of the UCCJEA issue in mother's prior appeal. That is, because the UCCJEA issue has been addressed in this case and remanded for further proceedings and the prior conditional reversal of the jurisdiction order operated to invalidate, at least conditionally, the exit custody order can we grant mother effective relief? (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 59-60 [an appellate court ordinarily will dismiss an appeal as moot when it cannot grant effective relief].)
In their letter briefs in response to our request, the parties agree that mother's UCCJEA contention is moot in light of our prior opinion. We also agree. (In re N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 59-60.)
As for the order awarding father sole legal and physical custody, mother argues that order is not moot "because it is uncertain what the outcome of the remanded UCCJEA compliance hearing will be." Effectively, mother argues that our resolution of her challenge to the order awarding father custody would be premature. Nevertheless, mother requests that we address her challenge to that order because she is concerned that if we dismiss her challenge and California retains jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, she will "not have any legal recourse to otherwise challenge the terms of the custody/exit order, as the time for filing a new appeal in which to challenge the exit/custody order will have lapsed."
Father argues good cause exists to dismiss mother's appeal as to the order awarding him sole legal and physical custody because the conditional reversal of mother's prior appeal operated to conditionally invalidate that order.
The Department argues that mother's challenge to the order awarding father sole legal and physical custody is premature as it is contingent on the outcome of the UCCJEA issue on remand. It requests that we dismiss the appeal stating that if after remand California retains jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and the juvenile court reinstates or modifies its previous orders, mother may then raise her claim in another appeal if necessary.
We agree with the Department.
IV. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: RUBIN, P. J. MOOR, J.