1

Filed 4/29/22 In re Z.T. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Z.T. et al.,

Persons Coming Under the 

 Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES BUREAU,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

 

 A163190

 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct.

 Nos. J21-00028, J21-00029,

 J21-00030)

C.T. (Father) appeals from juvenile court orders finding jurisdiction 

over his three minor children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

300, subdivision (b)(1) (“section 300(b)(1)”)1 and disposition orders requiring 

he engage in family maintenance services. Because the juvenile court 

vacated the dependencies and dismissed his children’s dependency petitions 

during the pendency of this appeal, we dismiss Father’s appeal as moot. 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise stated.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 3, 2021, Father and C.V.T. (Mother) reportedly engaged in 

a violent physical altercation in the presence of their three children in their 

family home. The dispute began in the kitchen while Father was holding 

their then one-year old son C. After the argument ended and Father left the 

house, Mother called the police.

According to the summary of the police report prepared by Contra 

Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (“CFS”), Mother told the 

responding officer that Father, while holding C., punched the right side of her 

face and pushed her, causing her to fall backwards into the dining table. To 

defend herself, Mother began pushing, punching, and slapping Father. The 

fight moved from the kitchen to the living room, where Father put C. down. 

There, Father grabbed Mother, pulled her to the floor, and sat atop her

pinning her to the ground. He continued to slap and punch her, while she 

scratched him in an effort to get free. Once Mother told Father she could not 

breathe, he got off. C.’s older sisters—then 9-year old Z. and then 6-year old 

J.—were sitting on the living room couch during the entire altercation.

Mother told the officer there have been “multiple incidents” but neither she 

nor Father reported them.

When the responding officer located Father, Father said that Mother 

wished death on him and cornered him against the kitchen table. He 

attempted to push her away and slapped her to defend himself. Mother 

punched him while also hitting C. After they moved to the living room where 

he put C. down, he grabbed her to prevent her from hitting him further and 

they both fell to the floor. He pinned her down to prevent her from hitting 

him, but she struck him 20 to 30 times with her fists and scratched him. He 

released her once she agreed to calm down. Father stated that his daughters 
3

witnessed the incident, but he told them to go upstairs while he was 

restraining Mother because he did not want them to see what was happening. 

He told the officer there have been multiple unreported incidents in the past 

where Mother hit him.

Z. told the officer she and her sister were in the living room watching 

television when she heard her parents arguing in the kitchen. She heard 

something hit the dining table and later saw Mother leaning back against the 

table while Father stood over her holding C. Z. saw Father swing and slap or 

punch Mother’s face and also witnessed the two of them push and hit each 

other. When they moved their fight into the living room, Father grabbed 

Mother, pulled her to the floor, got on top of her, and punched and slapped 

her repeatedly. J. told the officer that, from the living room, she heard her 

parents arguing. In the living room, she saw Father slap Mother as he sat on

top of her but could provide no more details. Z. also reported seeing her 

parents hit each other in the past.

Father was arrested based on the officer’s belief that he had been the 

“dominant/primary aggressor in the incident.” Mother did not press charges.

The family was referred to CFS, which opened an investigation. On 

January 6, 2021, a CFS social worker attempted to interview the children at 

the house but Mother denied access, only allowing a glimpse of the children

from the front door. They were properly dressed and appeared to not have 

any visible marks or injuries. Mother also refused to speak with the social 

worker stating the children were safe and not at risk of harm or injury. That 

same day, the social worker reached out by telephone to Father, who also 

refused to discuss the alleged domestic violence and stated the allegations

were false. When the social worker reached out the following week, Mother 

again declined to participate in an interview citing COVID concerns, and 
4

Father engaged in an extended conversation about the investigation process 

but did not commit to an interview. When the social worker reached out to 

Mother a third time, Mother declined the interview and reported that the 

matter had been resolved and that she had sought forgiveness from God and 

the children. When the social worker contacted Father a third time the same 

day, he too indicated he would not cooperate and said he felt he was being 

deceived. Accordingly, CFS was unable to interview the parents or children 

regarding the alleged domestic violence altercation. 

On January 21, 2021, CFS filed three juvenile dependency petitions 

against both parents pursuant to section 300(b)(1) for each of the children 

based upon their exposure to domestic violence. In its detention/jurisdiction 

report filed several days later, CFS expressed concern that Father and 

Mother “minimize[d] the impact of repeated exposure to violence[,] increasing 

concern for the children[’]s[] physical health and mental suffering due to 

domestic violence in the home.” In CFS’s view, “there [was] a substantial 

risk to the physical health of the children suffering several physical and 

emotional damage” based on the “ongoing and active safety threats of 

domestic violence likely to injure the children.” Without intervention, CFS 

believed additional incidents of domestic violence would occur and place the 

children at risk of harm. CFS requested juvenile court oversight given its 

inability to interview and fully assess the safety of the children. In an effort 

to prevent further trauma to the children, CFS did not ask to detain the 

children from their parents’ custody but would reassess placement upon 

completing a fuller evaluation. Even so, CFS recommended Father 

voluntarily stay elsewhere during the investigation. CFS also recommended 

both parents enroll in domestic violence, parenting, and anger management 

classes.
5

At the detention hearing, the juvenile court noted that typically in 

cases with this level of domestic violence, there would have been a request for 

detention and the children would be removed from the home. It observed the 

case was made very difficult and raised more concerns for CFS due to “an 

absolute lack of cooperation by the parents.” The court also recognized CFS 

was “bending over backwards” to work with the family to ensure the children 

could remain safely in their home. Based on counsels’ representations to the 

court that Father and Mother were now willing to engage with CFS, the court 

ordered a team decision meeting be completed by the family to discuss their 

support systems and create a safety plan to ensure the children’s safety. It 

also directed the parents to cooperate with CFS on unannounced visits. The 

court did not order Father to leave the family home given the difficulty of 

finding a place in light of COVID concerns and costs but hoped he would 

abide by the recommendation to stay elsewhere. The court continued the 

detention hearing until it had more information.

On January 28, 2021, a few days prior to the next hearing, CFS

submitted a memorandum to the court with recent developments. Father

had apologized for previously resisting CFS’s outreach, accepted

responsibility for his behavior, and agreed to a safety plan. There had been a 

family meeting with CFS. The parents acknowledged they had unaddressed 

issues related to past trauma and their divergent opinions on household 

responsibilities and priorities. They were under a lot of stress due to COVID 

shelter-in-place orders, spending more time at home with each other, the 

challenges of distance learning, and the loss of contact with their church and 

support network. With CFS’s assistance, they created a safety plan which 

allowed Father to remain in the home as long as the parents agreed to stop 

arguing and physically fighting and instead to use healthy coping skills when 
6

conversations escalated. The parents shared that they had utilized some 

coping skills effectively and that there had not been any violent incidents at 

the house. In addition, during an unannounced visit, Z. and J. informed 

social workers that they saw a significant improvement in their parents’ 

behavior and felt “extremely safe” in the family home. The girls expressed 

sadness and disappointment about their parents’ previous fights. However, 

Z. shared “things in her home have been better and the family has been

praying more, playing games together and they recently went out of the home 

to eat out.”

CFS concluded the update as follows: “[Father and mother] have great 

insight as to what their issues are and are willing to receive the help they 

need. They are open to participating in marital counseling, family therapy, 

and anger management classes in order to help them deal with their anger 

and avoid resorting to physical violence or property destruction. . . . [They] 

have agreed to follow up with . . . services and make the necessary changes to 

be better spouses to each other and better parents to their children. Now 

that the parents are cooperative . . . the plan will be to continue . . . oversight 

and make sure the parents follow through with the services [that have been]

offered to address the issues that brought them to the attention of [CFS].”

On February 1, 2021, the juvenile court held a “continued detention 

hearing.” CFS confirmed it was not asking the court to detain the children at 

this time, which the children’s counsel supported. Observing that “this case 

[was] moving in the right direction,” the court commended the parents’ 

cooperation and ability to discuss difficult issues and to acknowledge they

needed help. It ordered the children remain in parental custody.

On April 5, 2021, CFS filed its disposition report recommending the 

juvenile court sustain the dependency petition, declare all three children 
7

dependents pursuant to section 300 (b)(1), maintain the children in parental 

custody, and award Father and Mother family maintenance services which 

would allow the children to remain in the home under the supervision of CFS. 

The report explained: “[CFS] is worried that [Father and Mother] will 

continue to argue with each other and will escalate to physical violence while 

in the presence of the children and that violence will affect the children’s 

emotional well-being and put them at continued risk of physical harm. [The 

parties] have been working on identifying the triggers that cause the 

disagreements and find healthy coping skills to deal with stress to avoid the 

escalation. [Father and Mother] have great insight regarding their situation

and although they said they have eliminated the violence from their lives, 

they are still missing the internal healing. . . . Although some issues have 

been resolved, the family continues experiencing new life stressors that are 

affecting the family functioning. [CFS] acknowledges the hard work the 

family has been putting in when dealing with an open CFS case and dealing 

with major milestones in their lives. The children have reported that their 

parents are following family rules and are arguing less, not cursing as much 

as before and have incorporated some positive family time. [Father] is 

actively participating in anger management classes and both [parents] have 

started parenting classes, however the children have not been assessed or 

participated in mental health services and the parents have not participated 

in therapeutic services. [CFS] would like the family to complete all services 

before the case can be closed. . . . [CFS] is hopeful this family can accomplish 

the goals and behavioral changes needed to successfully close the case.”

Father filed an “answer” to and motion to dismiss the petition, claiming 

a lack of evidence and fraud in CFS’s investigation. He also asked the court 
8

to dismiss the proceeding based upon the parents’ cooperation with CFS and 

his engagement in services over the course of six months. 

On June 7, 2021, following a contested jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing, the juvenile court denied Father’s motion to dismiss in part, striking 

some of the allegations in the original petition. It amended and sustained 

separate allegations for Father and Mother stating each parent had “placed 

[each] child at substantial risk of physical harm and neglect” based on (a) the 

parents’ January 3rd physical alteration in the presence of the children, in 

which Father punched Mother repeatedly while holding C. in his arms; (b) 

Father’s January 3rd arrest for battery on spouse and “willful cruelty to 

child;” and (c) information of prior domestic violence incidents between 

[Father and Mother] not reported to police. The court further noted: “The 

gravamen of this case is [domestic violence] and this has been proved by a

preponderance that this incident occurred, that both parents were involved, 

that the children were present and that at least at the initiation of the 

incident one of the parents was holding [C.].”

As to disposition, the court stated, “I am mainly in agreement with the 

recommendations for family maintenance. I believe the children should 

remain in the home. I also think it’s appropriate to see how this case is doing 

in several months.” Accordingly, the court ordered the children to remain in 

their home with the parents under the supervision of CFS. It also directed 

each parent to engage in an anger management program, general counseling, 

and parenting education. The court acknowledged the parents had begun to 

engage with CFS and to participate in services and that family circumstances 

have calmed down. In the court’s view, however, the January 3rd altercation 

between the parents was not an isolated incident based on reports from 
9

various family members indicating prior incidents of violence between the 

parents. Thus, “appropriate limited court oversight [was] in order.”

On August 2, 2021, Father appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction 

and disposition order. Mother did not file an appeal. 

On December 13, 2021, a week after Father filed his opening brief, the 

juvenile court conducted a six-month family maintenance status review 

hearing in which the court determined the children were no longer persons 

described by section 300. The court vacated the dependencies and dismissed 

each child’s petition.

2

DISCUSSION

Father contends that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and 

orders based on his conduct were not supported by substantial evidence. He 

also argues the court erred by continuing the dependency jurisdiction once he 

and Mother acknowledged and addressed the problems giving rise to the 

dependency proceedings, and it abused its discretion when it ordered him to 

engage in additional unnecessary and unwarranted family maintenance 

services. We shall not address his contentions because his appeal is now 

moot.

Generally, an appellate court will dismiss an appeal as moot when 

events occur during the appeal that render it impossible for the court to grant 

effective relief. (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60 (N.S.).) “As a 

general rule, an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an 

appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceeding moot.” (In re C.C.

2 We grant CFS’s request for judicial notice of the juvenile court’s 

certified minute orders with respect to its six-month status review during 

which the court found Z., J., and C. no longer persons described by section 

300 and terminated the dependencies. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459; In re 

Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1417 [judicially noticing minute 

order that rendered appellate issue moot].)
10

(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488 (C.C.); see also In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 

Cal.App.5th 156, 163 [“terminating juvenile court jurisdiction generally 

renders an appeal from an earlier order moot”].) “[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.” (N.S., supra,

245 Cal.App.4th at p. 60.) Dismissal for mootness in such circumstances is 

not automatic but must be decided on a case-by-case basis. (C.C., supra, 172 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1488.)

“Still a court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue 

when there remain ‘material questions for the court’s determination’ 

[citation], where a ‘pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is 

likely to recur’ [citation], or where ‘there is a likelihood of recurrence of the 

controversy between the same parties or others.’ ” (N.S., supra, 245 

Cal.App.4th at p. 59.) 

In this case, we can give no effective relief. The juvenile court has 

vacated the dependency proceedings with respect to Father’s children and 

dismissed their dependency petitions, thus terminating jurisdiction over Z., 

J., and C. The children remain in Father and Mother’s custody without 

supervision of CFS, and there is nothing in the record or judicially noticed 

materials indicating Father continues to be subject to any ongoing orders for 

family maintenance services. As Father identifies no current order from the 

dependency proceedings adverse to him, and we are not otherwise aware of 

any from the record, there is no effective relief we can provide Father in his 

appeal from the jurisdictional findings or orders.

Father contends his appeal is not moot because the court’s “erroneous 

and harmful” findings that he exposed his three children to a substantial risk 

of serious physical harm within the meaning of section 300(b)(1) “could have 
11

‘unfavorable consequences’ for [him] ‘extending beyond termination of 

dependency jurisdiction’ and may prejudicially ‘infect’ future dependency and 

/or family law custody proceedings.” He claims if the court’s findings are 

allowed to stand, he “may be unjustly labeled as a ‘child abuser’ in the Child 

Abuse Central Index (CACI). For these reasons, Father says this court can 

grant him effective relief and should decide his appeal on the merits.3 We are 

not persuaded.

Father’s concern that future dependency or family law proceedings will 

be “infected” if findings are not reversed is speculative. Father does not 

identify any actual future proceedings and asserts only that the court’s 

findings “could have” or “may” impact such hypothetical proceedings. 

(Emphasis added.) Speculation about the possible use of the juvenile court’s 

findings in a future dependency or family law case is an insufficient ground 

to continue with an appeal of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional or 

dispositional findings and orders once the juvenile court has terminated 

jurisdiction. (See, e.g., In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1493–1495.) 

There is no reason for us to review jurisdictional findings “on the basis of 

such speculation or caution” about the theoretical future effects of those 

findings. (See N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 [declining to review 

juvenile court jurisdictional findings based on “speculation and caution”].)

3 Several months before he noticed his appeal, the California Supreme 

Court granted review of an unpublished decision to consider the following 

questions: “(1) Is an appeal of a juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding moot 

when a parent asserts that he or she has been or will be stigmatized by the 

finding? (2) Is an appeal of a juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding moot 

when a parent asserts that he or she may be barred from challenging a 

current or future placement on the Child Abuse Central Index as a result of 

the finding?” (See In re D.P. (Feb. 10, 2021, B301135) [nonpub. opn.] 2021 

WL 486159, review granted May 26, 2021, S267429].)
12

Father’s concerns about being “unjustly labeled as a ‘child abuser’ ” and 

included in CACI are tenuous and unavailing. CACI is a statewide database 

of substantiated child abuse reports maintained by the California 

Department of Justice under the Child Abuse and Neglect and Reporting Act 

(the “Act”). (See Pen. Code, §§ 1164 et seq.) Under the Act, a county welfare 

department is required to report to the Department of Justice substantiated 

cases of known or suspected child abuse or severe neglect. (Pen. Code, 

§ 11169, subd. (a).) In addition, a county welfare department is required to 

provide written notice to any known or suspected child abuser that he or she 

has been reported to CACI. (See id. § 1169, subd. (c).) Father has presented 

no authority that CFS has a reporting duty arising from a juvenile court 

sustaining a section 300 petition, such as the one sustained in this case. Nor 

has Father demonstrated that CFS has referred him to CACI. The record 

does not contain any evidence that a referral of Father has been made, or 

that either parent has been noticed of a CACI referral as required by Penal 

Code section 11169, subdivision (c). As such, Father’s CACI concerns are also 

speculative and provide no reason for us to review the juvenile court’s 

findings and orders.

DISPOSITION

Father’s appeal is dismissed as moot.
13

_________________________

Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Tucher, P.J.

_________________________

Rodríguez, J.

A163190/Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau v. C.T.