Opinion
B230690
10-13-2011
In re STEPHEN Q., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.Q., Defendant and Appellant.
Gerard McCusker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jackyln K. Louie, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CK83084)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stanley Genser, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed.
Gerard McCusker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jackyln K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
C.Q. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and order declaring her then-six-year-old son, Stephen Q., a dependent child of the court as described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), based in part on sustained allegations she had made an inappropriate plan for the child's care and supervision by leaving him with her roommate who, in turn, left the child home without adult supervision. Stephen was found by a neighbor wandering the streets barefoot.
The sustained allegation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g), was based on the failure of Stephen's father to provide him with the necessities of life.
At disposition in December 2010 the court ordered Stephen to remain in the home of his mother under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department). Mother was directed to participate in individual counseling to address case issues, including her history of domestic violence (as a victim), to maintain Department-approved housing, to use only Department-approved child care and to ensure that Stephen attends school on a regular basis.
At the initial Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 review hearing in June 2011, while Mother's appeal was pending, the juvenile court found dependency jurisdiction was no longer necessary and terminated its jurisdiction over Stephen. On September 13, 2011 we provided the parties with a copy of the court's order and advised them, based on this development and the fact Stephen had not been removed from Mother's custody at disposition, it appeared the appeal from the court's jurisdictional findings may be moot.
We advised the parties we intended to take judicial notice of the June 6, 2011 order terminating dependency jurisdiction over Stephen, which we now do (Evid. Code, §§ 459 , 452, subd. (d)), and requested they submit letter briefs addressing whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot.
In response to our invitation to brief the issue of mootness, counsel for Mother, after communicating with his client, submitted on the question without argument. The Department agreed with our assessment and urged the appeal be dismissed as moot.
An order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction generally renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot. (See In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488; In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330.) However, a dismissal for mootness in such circumstances is not automatic; if erroneous jurisdictional findings could have severe and unfair consequences in future family law or dependency proceedings, termination of dependency jurisdiction does not necessarily moot an appeal from those findings. (See In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 716; see generally In re Kristin B. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 596, 605 [question of mootness of appeal from order preceding order terminating dependency jurisdiction "must be decided on a case-by-case basis"].)
Here, Mother has retained custody of Stephen; dependency jurisdiction has ended; and there are no other, ongoing juvenile or family law proceedings involving any of the parties. Given the nature of the jurisdiction findings in this case, it is difficult to imagine how they could have any future adverse impact on Mother, even if they were incorrect. In any event, any such potential adverse impact is, at most, highly speculative.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
PERLUSS, P. J. We concur:
ZELON, J.
JACKSON, J.