Opinion
B322977
11-29-2023
In re B.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.B., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from jurisdictional finding and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 22LJJP00153A-D, Stephanie Davis, Judge. Dismissed.
John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MOOR, J.
Mother appeals the juvenile court's July 28, 2022 order declaring her children dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) contends that the jurisdictional finding is supported by substantial evidence. We dismiss mother's appeal as moot.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless stated otherwise.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother has four children: the oldest was born in April 2007, twins were born in April 2009, and the youngest was born in April 2011. The children have the same father, but he has not been in contact with the family for years, and is not a party to this appeal. In 2019, mother and the children moved from Georgia to California without notifying social workers who were working with mother in connection with an open child welfare case in Richmond County, Georgia, based on deplorable home conditions, including no electricity.
An August 2019 referral to the Department expressed concern about the prior Georgia child welfare case and that mother had not confirmed the children were enrolled in school in Los Angeles. The Department closed the matter because it was unable to locate mother or the children after exhaustive search efforts. A December 2020 referral was also closed after the Department provided mother with information about community resources to support the children's well-being.
The Department's investigation into the current case began in February 2022, based on a referral alleging that the children were frequently late to school or absent from school, they were attending a school outside of their school district, and they had been seen wandering around parks and sleeping on bus benches. In addition, one of the twins was partially deaf and did not have a hearing aid, three of the children had disabilities, and mother appeared to have difficulty processing and understanding information. Staff at the youngest child's elementary school reported that the family needed support. Mother had not acquired Medi-Cal insurance, necessary to obtain a hearing aid for the partially deaf twin; she struggled to complete school documents and rarely returned calls from the school. The children had missed over 40 days of school.
After initial difficulties contacting mother, the social worker spoke to mother on March 9, 2022. Mother acknowledged that three of her children have developmental delays and one of the twins is deaf in his right ear. She told the social worker she has been waiting for a hearing aid for months, but had not yet received one from Medicaid or Medi-Cal. She was happy to receive assistance, including a medical hub referral. However, she later cancelled the referral appointment, stating the children already had their own doctor. By mid-April, the twin still did not have a hearing aid, the children were again missing school, and the social worker informed mother the Department would be filing a dependency petition. Mother was unhappy but understood the additional support would benefit her and her children.
The Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that mother had medically neglected the twins by failing to ensure one had a hearing aid and revoking the other twin's services for his disabilities, and that such neglect placed them and their siblings at risk of harm. The Department's report did not recommend detention, but rather that the children receive assessments and relevant services. At the initial hearing on May 9, 2022, the court ordered that the children would remain with mother under the Department's supervision; mother was ordered to participate in family preservation services, take minors to all medical and educational assessments and appointments, ensure the minors were attending school and three were receiving speech therapy, and obtain a hearing aid for the partially deaf twin.
Mother enrolled in a 12-week parenting program on May 25, 2022. In a jurisdiction and disposition report filed July 14, 2022, the Department reported mother had made efforts to obtain a hearing aid, but the twin's audiology appointment was not until November 2022. Mother reported individualized education plans (IEPs) were put into place for the twins, but the Department was not able to confirm mother's reports about the IEPs due to the summer break. The Department recommended the court order mother to enter into a voluntary family maintenance agreement with the Department under section 360, subdivision (b). On July 18, 2022, mother signed a voluntary case plan with a projected completion date of January 26, 2023.
The Department later reported that neither twin had an IEP. By July 21, 2022, mother told the social worker she was no longer interested in participating in the voluntary case plan, despite previously agreeing to it. The Department changed its recommendation, asking the court to sustain the petition and order family maintenance services.
At the adjudication hearing on July 28, 2022, mother testified that the partially deaf twin had lost his hearing aid during the 2019-2020 school year, and he had an appointment scheduled for the following morning with audiology, where he would receive his hearing aid. Mother had completed seven sessions of her parenting program, with four remaining. Mother's counsel asked the juvenile court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Department had not met their burden to show that mother's behavior posed a risk to the children. Minor's counsel asked the court to sustain the petition as to the twins and the youngest child, because one twin had a medical need for a hearing aid, that mother had left unfilled for at least two years, and the other two children did not yet have IEPs. The court sustained amended petition allegations as to all four children, and ordered family maintenance services for mother. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
At the six-month review hearing on January 30, 2023, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the children, staying its termination order until a custody order was prepared and filed on February 2, 2023.
We grant mother's request for judicial notice, and take judicial notice of the court's post-appeal orders. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d)(1), 455, 459.)
DISCUSSION
" '[T]he critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error.'" (In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 163; see In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 275.) An" 'appeal may become moot where subsequent events, including orders by the juvenile court, render it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief.'" (Rashad D., at p. 163.) "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." '" (D.P., at p. 276.)
Even when a case is moot, a court may exercise its "inherent discretion" to reach the merits of the dispute. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) Discretionary review generally is appropriate only when a case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, when the controversy between the parties may recur, or when a material question remains for the court's determination. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court identified several additional, non-exhaustive factors for evaluating whether discretionary review of a moot case may be warranted. (Id. at pp. 284-286.) First, the court may consider whether the challenged jurisdiction finding could impact current or future dependency proceedings, for example, by influencing the child protective agency's decision to file a new dependency petition or the juvenile court's determination about further reunification services. (Id. at p. 285.) Second, the court may consider the nature of the allegations against the parent: "The more egregious the findings against the parent, the greater the parent's interest in challenging such findings." (Id. at p. 286.) Third, the court may consider whether the case became moot due to prompt compliance by parents with their case plan: "It would perversely incentivize noncompliance if mootness doctrine resulted in the availability of appeals from jurisdictional findings only for parents who are less compliant or for whom the court has issued additional orders." (Ibid.)
Mother acknowledges in her opening brief that her appeal is moot, but requests that we exercise our discretion to consider the substance of her appeal, pointing to two of the factors described in D.P., as weighing in favor of exercising our discretion to reach the merits of her appeal. First, mother argues that discretionary review is favored on an appeal of a jurisdictional finding, because if allowed to remain unchallenged, the finding could play a role in the Department's decision to file a new dependency petition. (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285.) We do not read the language in D.P. as broadly as mother would suggest, particularly in this case, where any future Department action would more likely stem from ongoing problems similar to those that led to multiple referrals and the Department's efforts to provide voluntary services in this case, rather than the jurisdictional finding alone.
Second, mother argues that discretionary review is appropriate because her appeal became moot based on her prompt compliance with services. However, mother has not provided any evidence to support her assertion, other than the fact that the court has terminated jurisdiction. To the contrary, the appellate record supports the conclusion that although mother was at times willing to voluntarily engage in services during the early stages of the case, when mother failed to follow through, the Department had to first file the dependency petition under section 300. Later, when mother initially indicated she was willing to engage in services and then reneged on her agreement to a voluntary case plan under section 360, subdivision (b), the Department revised its initial recommendation of a voluntary agreement to a recommendation that the court sustain the petition and exercise jurisdiction in order to ensure the children's needs were met. Without any evidence about the extent to which prompt compliance formed the basis for the court's decision to terminate jurisdiction, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of mother's case, particularly where the nature of the challenged allegations are not so egregious as to weigh in favor of discretionary review. We therefore decline mother's request that we reach the merits of her otherwise moot appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
We concur: BAKER, Acting P.J., KIM, J.