Filed 6/13/14 In re A.M. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 EIGHT

In re A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B248434

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK96692)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.M.,

Defendant and Appellant;

A.M. et al., 

 Respondents.

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

and

DENYING PETITION FOR 

REHEARING

[no change in judgment]

THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed in the above-captioned matter on May 29, 

2014, be modified as follows:

On page 4, line 7, delete the sentence beginning with “Father has not challenged 

the jurisdictional findings . . .” and replace with: Father has not challenged the 

jurisdictional findings as to mother. 

There is no change in the judgment. 

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
2

_______________________________________________________________________

BIGELOW, P. J. FLIER, J. GRIMES, J.
Filed 5/29/14 In re A.M. CA2/8 (unmodified version)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 EIGHT

In re A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B248434

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK96692)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.M.,

Defendant and Appellant;

A.M. et al., 

 Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Donna Levin, 

Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed.

Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent 

Minors A.M. and E.M., Jr.
4

Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Minor 

R.M.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and 

Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services.

* * * * * *

E.M., Sr. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition 

order of February 28, 2013. As we explain, we conclude the appeal has been rendered 

moot by the juvenile court’s termination of jurisdiction, and therefore dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Father and C.P. (mother) have three minor children, A.M., E.M., Jr., and R.M. 

Mother also has another son (J.P.) with a different father. Father resides with the paternal 

grandmother, and mother lives separately with the children. However, the children, 

particularly E.M., Jr., and A.M., regularly stayed with father and paternal grandmother. 

Mother and father were involved in a custody dispute with pending family law 

proceedings.

In November 2012, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivisions (a), (b) and (j), stating allegations against both father and mother. The 

children were not detained. A.M. and E.M., Jr. were placed with father on the condition 

they reside in the home with the paternal grandmother, and R.M. and J.P. were placed 

with mother. The court ordered appropriate family maintenance services and visitation. 

At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing held February 28, 2013, mother pled no 

contest to inappropriate discipline (counts a-1 and a-2), failure to supervise (count b-4), 

and abuse of a sibling based on the same acts of inappropriate discipline set forth in 

counts a-1 and a-2, namely slapping with a hand or belt (counts j-1 and j-2). The court 

sustained the petition on those grounds as to mother and dismissed counts b-1 and b-2. 
5

As to father, the court sustained the petition as pled in count b-3 which stated, in 

relevant part, that father “has a history of methamphetamine, cocaine and alcohol abuse, 

and is a current abuser of alcohol, which renders the father incapable of providing regular 

care for the children. On prior occasions in 2012, the father was under the influence of 

alcohol while the children were in the father’s care and supervision. The father’s alcohol 

abuse endangers the children’s physical and emotional health and safety and places the 

children at risk of physical harm and damage.” 

J.P. (who is not father’s child) was placed with mother. Father’s children, A.M., 

E.M., Jr. and R.M., all requested placement with mother because of the children’s 

expressed concerns with father’s drinking. R.M. requested that visitation with father only 

be allowed if monitored. The court ordered all children placed with mother and ordered 

visitation for father. 

On March 15, 2013, father filed this appeal, contending that both the court’s 

jurisdictional finding as to him, as well as the court’s dispositional order removing the 

children from his custody were not supported by substantial evidence. 

On January 24, 2014, this court, at the request of R.M., A.M. and E.M., Jr., 

ordered the appointment of appellate counsel for the minors as the proper party 

respondents. The minors subsequently filed respondents’ briefs contending the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders were supported by substantial evidence.

Respondent minors A.M. and E.M., Jr., filed a request for judicial notice of the 

juvenile court’s February 19, 2014 order terminating dependency jurisdiction over all 

four minors. On March 3, 2014, this court treated the minors’ request as a motion to 

augment the record and granted it. The juvenile court’s order terminating jurisdiction 

reflects that the court issued family law exit orders granting sole legal and physical 

custody of A.M., E.M., Jr., and R.M. to mother and granted father monitored visitation 

with all three minors. (Jurisdiction was terminated without exit orders as to minor J.P.) 

On April 7, 2014, this court requested supplemental letter briefs from the parties 

on the question of whether this appeal should be dismissed as moot in light of the 

juvenile court’s termination of jurisdiction. Father responded with a letter brief arguing 
6

for resolution of the appeal on its merits, the Department indicated it was not taking a 

position on the court’s intent to dismiss as moot, minors A.M. and E.M., Jr. concurred in 

this court’s intent to dismiss, and R.M. did not file a letter brief.

DISCUSSION

Father challenges the jurisdictional finding as to him pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and the disposition order removing A.M., 

E.M., Jr., and R.M. from his custody and placing them with mother. Father has not 

challenged the jurisdictional findings as to mother, nor has he appealed from the juvenile 

court’s subsequent order terminating dependency jurisdiction and issuing exit orders 

pursuant to section 362.4. We conclude this appeal is properly dismissed as moot.

“ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be 

maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.

A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore 

be dismissed.’ [Citation.]” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.) The 

termination of dependency jurisdiction by the juvenile court, while an appeal of an 

interim ruling by the juvenile court is pending, moots the appeal. (In re Michelle M. 

(1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 329-330.)

The appellate court may find, in a given case, that the appeal is not mooted “ ‘if

the purported error is of such magnitude as to infect the outcome of [subsequent 

proceedings] or where the alleged defect undermines the juvenile court’s initial 

jurisdictional finding. Consequently the question of mootness must be decided on a caseby-case basis.’ ” (In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1547, quoting In re 

Kristen B. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 596, 605; accord, In re Dani R., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 404.) An appellate court may also “exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an 

issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of continuing 

public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review.” (In re 

Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.)

We are not persuaded there is any error of “such magnitude” that the family court 

proceedings would be prejudicially “infected” against father so as to warrant resolution of 
7

the merits of this appeal. Father’s appeal from one of the jurisdictional findings is not 

only moot due to the termination of jurisdiction, but it was nonjusticiable from the outset 

because father did not appeal from the jurisdictional findings as to mother. (In re I.A. 

(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492.) As for the dispositional order removing the 

children from father’s custody, though we will not recite here all the facts supporting the 

removal order, we note there was substantial evidence in the reports of the Department 

that father’s long-term alcohol abuse placed the children at substantial risk of harm. (In 

re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849.) If father’s circumstances change, or have 

changed, the family law court is the proper court in which father may seek a change in 

custody and/or visitation rights.

DISPOSITION

The appeal filed March 15, 2013, is dismissed as moot in light of the juvenile 

court’s termination of dependency jurisdiction during the pendency of this appeal. 

GRIMES, J.

We concur:

BIGELOW, P. J. 

FLIER, J.