Opinion
B326336
02-27-2024
In re C.C., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. JASON C., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 22CCJP04284 Cathy J. Ostiller, Judge. Dismissed.
Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1.
Appellant Jason C. (Father) challenges the December 21, 2022 jurisdictional findings of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition filed by respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) regarding Father's children C.C. (born March 2020) and P.C. (born February 2022). Father argues substantial evidence does not support that the domestic violence between himself and the children's mother, Melissa M. (Mother), alleged in the petition placed the children at sufficient risk to justify juvenile court jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (a) or subdivision (b).
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother did not appeal the jurisdictional findings and is not a party to this appeal.
After Father filed this appeal, on October 3, 2023, the court sustained a section 387 petition regarding Mother (not Father), and removed the children from Mother (not Father).On October 10, 2023, the court terminated its jurisdiction over the children and issued a juvenile court custody order granting full legal and physical custody of C.C. and P.C. to Father with monitored visits for Mother. Mother did not appeal. The juvenile court custody order does not place any requirements or restrictions on Father or place any conditions on his custody rights.
We hereby grant DCFS's request that we take judicial notice of the juvenile court's October 3, 2023 orders, as well as other postappeal orders filed in the dependency proceedings below.
DCFS has moved this court to dismiss Father's appeal as moot based on the termination of the dependency proceedings on the terms set forth in the October 10, 2023 order. We agree that this development prevents us from granting Father any effective relief and thus renders the appeal moot. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 [the rule that "[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 effect[ive] relief[ ]"' [citation] . . . applies in the dependency context"].) The juvenile court already granted Father the exact relief he seeks on appeal- termination of juvenile court jurisdiction over his children. Moreover, the jurisdictional findings he challenges do not affect his legal status in any other way, now that the dependency proceedings have concluded on the terms of the October 10, 2023 order. (See id. at p. 277 ["to show a need for effective relief, the plaintiff must first demonstrate . . . some effect on the plaintiff's legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision"].) The California Supreme Court has rejected the arguments Father raises in opposing DCFS's motion to dismiss. (See id. at pp. 278-280 [neither the stigma for a parent from being the subject of a juvenile court jurisdictional finding nor the possibility of inclusion in the California Child Abuse Central Index reflects an effect on legal status sufficient to avoid mootness].)
Further, after considering the factors set forth in In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th 266, we decline to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of Father's moot appeal. (See id. at pp. 285-286 [noting Courts of Appeal may "exercise their inherent discretion to decide certain challenges to juvenile court jurisdictional findings, notwithstanding mootness" and itemizing various factors for consideration in deciding whether to do so].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
We concur: CHANEY, J. WEINGART, J.