Filed 1/29/15 In re Samuel S. CA2/1 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re SAMUEL S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B253528 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK01560)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
SOFIA L.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angele s County, Akemi D. Arakaki, Judge. Dismissed. Konrad S. Lee, under a ppointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County C ounsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, A ssistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Coun sel, for Plainti ff and Respondent.

——————————2 Sofia L. (mother) appeals from an order made at the dispositi onal hearing removing
her children from her care. She contends the juvenile court’s dispositional findings lack
sufficient evidentiar y support. We dismi ss the case as moot.
PROCEDURAL AND F ACTUAL BACKGROUND On September 30, 2013, Department of Childr en and Family Servic es (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Ins titutions Code section 300, 1 subdivisions (a) and (b) on behalf of then three-year-old Samuel S., and his tw o younger siblings. As ultimately amended and sustained, the petition a lleged that the chil dren’s parents engaged in a violent altercation in the presence of one of the children, du ring which the children’s fath er (who is no t a party to this appeal) struck moth er, leaving her with facial bruisi ng, a cut lip, contusions and an abrasion on her arm. Mother was alleged to ha ve put the children at risk by letting father remain in the family home with unlimited access to the children. DCFS reported that at sc hool on September 25 , 2013, when asked about his absence on September 23, Samuel S. ha d replied, “[M]y buba (dad) socked my mommy, chased her, fall over, and I was in th e back seat crying.” Mother and the children lived with the maternal grandparents. A social work er visited the home on Sept ember 25, 2013. The maternal grandmother said father had also lived in the home until three weeks before, when her
husband threw him out. The maternal grandfather had he ard Samuel S. shouting, “‘Buba stop stop,’” and when he came to see what was going on, found father on top of mother, hitting her. The grandfather pulled father off of mother and made him leave. The maternal grandmother said the pa rents had a contentious relationship. Mother was report edly good with the children, but had a problem controlling her anger. Both parents got aggressive and fought when they drank alcohol. The maternal grandmother said mother and father fought a lot, and the children had been present during incidents of domestic violen ce. A year earlier, fath er was arrested after

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3 he slammed a car door on moth er’s leg during a drunken argument. He was now on probation, and his probation officer had told hi m he would be deported if he was arrested again for domestic violen ce. Since then, mother had lied about her injuries and refused to call the police. Father had been fired for st ealing and arrested for grand theft, and had
fathered a child with another woman. Moth er refused to leave hi m. The couple was attending counseling to try to save their relationship. Father now lived with the children’s pate rnal grandmother. On September 22, after returning from taking th e children to fa ther, mother said her f ace had gotten bruised after father “head butted” her during an argume nt. She stayed in bed the next day. The social worker also spok e with Samuel S. who said his parents argued a lot and
that father often hit mo ther in the face. On a recent visit with father, his parents had fought
and father chased mother down the street. Mother fell, a nd father jumped on top of her and began “hitting her a lot,” while Samuel S. cr ied and asked him to st op. Mother’s body was bruised and she had gone to the hospital (where she was treated for a contusion to her eye and lacerations on both shoulders). The parents arrived t ogether while the so cial worker was st ill at the maternal grandparents’ home. Mo ther had visible injuri es on her head, cheek and arm, a black eye and a split lip. She denied having been hit, and was very angry about the DCFS investigation. She refused to keep the chil dren from father, refu sed DCFS’s offers of
assistance and tried to l eave with the children. Mother gave various ac counts of how she ac quired her injuries, including having been
attacked on th e street by an unknown woman, and having been in a car accident. She denied telling maternal grandmother that father had “h ead-butted” her. Mother also denied that father hurt her the year before, or that matern al grandfather had seen father hitti ng her three
weeks earlier. She insist ed she was not afraid of father and would not leave him. Father
admitted that he and mother had fought, and said they may have pushed one another. He denied hitting mother. Initially, the social worker offered to fi le a nondetained petiti on, and to leave the
children in mother’s care in the maternal gr andparents’ home, if she agreed to cooperate and4 the maternal grandparents could protect the chil dren and her from fath er. The children were later taken into protect ive custody, however , after mother became incr easingly upset, hostile and uncooperative, and trie d to leave the house wi th the children. Th ey were detained on September 30, 2013. By November 4, 2013, th e children were place d in foster care, an d mother visited for several hours, twice a week. Mo ther was participating in dome stic violence and parenting programs, and scheduled to begin individual coun seling. The parents were participating in a five week counseling wo rkshop for couples. Mother continued to be volatile and angry during her interactions with DCFS. A combined jurisdic tional/dispositional hearing was conducted on December 19, 2013. Mother pleaded no contest to the modified petition, which the cour t sustained. During the dispositional phase of the h earing, counsel for DCFS and the children requested that the children remain placed outside the parents’ care. Mothe r, who now lived alone apart from father, requested that the childr en be returned to her care or that maternal grandmother be assessed as a placement.
The court commended mother for having enrolled in programs and doing what she could to get the children returned to her care. However, the court al so observed that the parents had “minimize[ed] . . . the problems that got us here,” and said it was premature to
return the children to mother ’s custody. The children were declared dependents, removed from the parents’ physical cu stody, and ordered suitably placed. The court ordered
reunification services and monitored visitation for the parents. A six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) was scheduled for June 26, 2014. Mother appeals.
DISCUSSION
Mother’s sole assertion on a ppeal is that there is insuffi cient evidence to support the juvenile court’s order removing the children from her care or its finding that reasonable
efforts were undertaken to prevent removal. While this appeal was pending both partie s filed motions requesting this court to take judicial notice of a June 26, 2014 po stjudgment minute order by which the juvenile court ordered the children returned to their pa rents’ custody and care. We granted those5 requests and augmented the record. DCFS also filed a motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed arguing that the children’s return re ndered mother’s appeal moot, as there is no effective relief we can grant her. In response, mother argued th at the appeal is not moot. Although the children have been returned to her care, mother argu es that the juvenile court’s dispositional findings ma y negatively impact her ability to obtain employment as a police officer, as they could be “the firs t of many findings which could result in [her] being labeled an ‘unfit parent,’” and deprive her of services or justify the setting of a section 366.26 hearing. 2
Mother’s concern about the remote possibility that the juvenile court’s findings
will cause her to suffer disadva ntageous and prejudicial colla teral consequen ces is highly speculative. Mother was not found guilty of any misdeeds, nor doe s the record reflect that the juvenile court ever labeled (or threaten to label) her an unfit parent. 3 Additional evidence shows the juvenile court has conclu ded the children have remained safe in
mother’s care. This evidence bears on the issue of whether the appeal has become moot and must be dismissed. (See In re Karen G . (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1389–1390 [appellate court may consider postjudgment ev idence in determining whether an appeal has become moot].)

2 Mother declared she was advised by police department mentor to hold off on a pending application for employment “[d]ue to the allegations and case opened by DCFS.”

3 Indeed, on our own motion, we take judicial notice of the December 15, 2014, minute order in this case by which the juveni le court permitted the children to remain in the parents’ care and terminated its jurisdiction. Ordinarily, an appellate court may not consider postjudgment evidence that was never before the juvenile court or rely on such evidence outs ide the record to reverse the judgment. ( In re Zeth S . (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 400.) Be cause this appeal is not from an order terminating parent al rights and we are not reversing, taking judicial notice will not impair “the juvenile law’s purpose of ‘e xpediting the proceedings and promoting the finality of the juvenile court’s orders and judgment.’” ( In re Salvador M . (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1421, quoting Zeth S. , at p. 413.) The minute order relates solely to the issue of whether the appeal has become moot and should be dismis sed, not its merits. ( In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4t h 664, 676, citing Zeth S ., at p. 413.)6 “‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be
maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subs equent acts or events. A
reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, an d the appeal will therefore be dismissed.’ [Citation.]” ( In re Dani R . (2001) 89 Cal.A pp.4th 402, 404 ( Dani R .).) We decide on a case-by-case basi s “whether subsequent events in a dependency case have rendered [an] appeal moot and whether [our] d ecision would affect th e outcome of the case in a [later] proceeding.” ( In re Esperanza C . (2008) 165 Cal.A pp.4th 1042, 1055.)
In Dani R ., supra , 89 Cal.App.4th 402, a mother appealed a juvenile court order denying her request for reunification servic es. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court granted the mo ther’s petition for reunification services. The appellate court found that the mother’s subsequent re ceipt of services rendered her appeal moot, and dismissed the appeal. ( Id . at p. 406; accord In re C.C . (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488–1489 [juvenile court’s order restoring m onitored visitation rende red parent’s appeal re earlier order denying such visitati on moot].) This case is analogous to Dani R. and In
re C.C . While this appeal was pending mother e ffectively obtained th e relief sought by her appeal, which is therefore moot.7 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

CHANEY, Acting P. J.

MILLER, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Cour t, assigned by the Ch ief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.