Opinion
B297524
02-25-2020
In re M.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.C. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.C. Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.R. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP07526A-C) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Dismissed. Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.C. Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.R. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
A.C. (father) and E.R. (mother), who were separated before this case began, appeal the order adjudicating their three daughters dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Father also challenges the dispositional order removing the children from his custody. While the parents' appeals were pending, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over the children, entering a family law order governing custody and visitation. As a result, we can no longer provide any effective relief in this case, and so we dismiss both appeals as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother and father have three daughters, who were ages five, ten, and twelve when the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) began its investigation in October 2018. The parents have never been legally married; they separated about three years earlier, but continued seeing each other off and on until permanently ending their relationship. There was no family law order, but the daughters lived with mother, and father saw them almost every day. The daughters did not stay overnight with father because he did not have a permanent residence.
On October 28, 2018, father had all three girls in the car with him after dinner. He was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). After the Department's initial investigation, the children were detained with their mother, and the Department filed a petition based on father's October 2018 arrest and a prior DUI conviction in 2010.
The Department's investigation revealed that father had an extensive criminal history, including the 2010 DUI conviction, and arrests for spousal abuse in 2011, 2014, 2016, and 2017.
Mother and father had a history of domestic violence incidents. The earliest incident took place in September 2007 and resulted in mother's arrest. Mother was convicted of spousal abuse in 2010 and completed a domestic violence batterer's program the same year. In incidents in February 2011 and October 2014, father was arrested after he was drinking and became jealous of mother talking or "messing around" with other men. In February 2011, father bit mother's hand and scratched her face. In October 2014, he hit her with his fist and tried to choke her. More recently, in January 2017, mother and father argued in a parking lot with the children present, and father tried to block mother's car while he was holding their oldest child. Mother reported the incident to the police, who provided the parents with referrals for parenting classes and counseling. In February 2017, mother called the police and obtained a temporary restraining order against father after he entered her home and found her with another man. The children were not present.
The Department filed a first amended petition, adding allegations under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), based on the parents' lengthy history of domestic violence. In March 2019, the Department reported that father had started weekly counseling for substance abuse in November 2018, started parenting education classes in December 2018, and was in the process of enrolling in a DUI program as part of his criminal case. Mother planned to enroll in programs after March 2019.
At the March 26, 2019 adjudication hearing, counsel for mother and father argued there was insufficient evidence to support dependency jurisdiction. The court entered the Department's reports into evidence, sustained the petition allegations under section 300, subdivision (b), and dismissed the subdivision (a) allegations. The court ordered the children removed from father's custody only, permitting the children to remain in mother's custody. Father was provided monitored visits, but precluded mother from being the monitor; the court gave the Department discretion to liberalize father's visits. Both mother and father were ordered to participate in domestic violence programs. Mother was to attend Alanon meetings, and father was to participate in a drug and alcohol treatment program, drug testing, parenting classes, and individual counseling.
Mother and father both appealed, challenging the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders.
The parties dispute whether father properly appealed the jurisdictional findings based on his history of alcohol abuse. Ultimately, the issue is irrelevant.
Post-appeal proceedings
On September 23, 2019, the juvenile court entered orders terminating jurisdiction and granting mother and father joint legal custody of their three children, with mother having sole physical custody and father having unmonitored visitation. On December 2, 2019, this court sent a letter inviting the parties to address why this court should not take judicial notice of the September 23, 2019 orders and dismiss the current appeals as moot.
We take judicial notice of the juvenile court's September 23, 2019 minute order. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
The Department filed a letter brief agreeing that the parents' appeals were moot. Father's letter brief conceded that his appeal of the dispositional orders was moot, as the September 23, 2019 order granted him unmonitored visitation. He argued, however, that his appeal of the jurisdictional findings was not moot, because dismissal would effectively affirm the jurisdictional findings, which could result in adverse consequences for father in any future family law or dependency proceedings. Mother's letter brief similarly argued that the collateral effect of the jurisdictional findings, if allowed to remain unchallenged, would subject her to a repetitive pattern in future proceedings with the Department and the juvenile court.
DISCUSSION
"As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot. [Citation.] However, dismissal for mootness in such circumstances is not automatic, but 'must be decided on a case-by-case basis.'" (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) "[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 N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60.) In In re N.S., the appellate court rejected the argument made by mother, who had appealed the court's jurisdictional findings for insufficient evidence, that a dismissal of her appeal would leave the juvenile court's possibly erroneous findings unexamined, insulating them from review. (Id. at pp. 61-62.) The mother in In re N.S. had regained custody of her children, and the court rejected mother's arguments about the impact of those findings on possible future proceedings, noting that the underlying facts were undisputed. (Id. at pp. 62-63.)
Similarly, in the case before us, the juvenile court not only terminated its jurisdiction, but in doing so, it granted both parents joint legal custody, with mother's custody and father's visitation returning to the same status as before these proceedings began. The parents' argument that the jurisdictional findings, if allowed to stand, would cause them prejudice in future proceedings is unconvincing. (In re N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 63 [court was not convinced that an appellate decision "would have any practical effect on future dependency proceedings"].) If a future dependency proceeding involving either parent were to be initiated, it is unclear how the findings from this case would adversely affect the parent in such a future case in a manner that is separate from the past incidents of domestic violence and father's prior DUI arrests. Those events are already part of the documented case history, the sustained jurisdictional findings specify the dates of the events in question, and so their potential impact on future proceedings is speculative at best. We disagree that there is any effective relief this court can provide, because "[t]hose facts would almost certainly be available in any future dependency proceedings." (Id. at p. 63.) "We see no reason to review the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings here on the basis of such speculation or caution." (Id. at p. 62; see also In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1494-1495.)
Although sometimes courts exercise their discretion and consider an appeal out of "'an abundance of caution'" (In re C.V. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 566, 571), we conclude the circumstances presented here do not warrant our review.
DISPOSITION
The appeals are dismissed.
MOOR, J.
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P.J.
KIM, J.