Filed 10/6/21 In re J.Y. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re J.Y. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.F. et al.

Defendants and Appellants.

D078859

(Super. Ct. No. J520193)

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Appeals dismissed. 

Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant T.F. 

Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant J.Y.Y. 

Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy 

County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

T.F. (Mother) and minor J.Y.Y. (together appellants) appeal from 

orders made at a contested hearing held on April 16, 2021, arguing that the 

record does not show that the San Diego County Health and Human Services 

Agency (the Agency) conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding Mother’s Indian 

ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et

seq.). 

The Agency responded to these appeals by filing a request for judicial 

notice of postjudgment rulings by the juvenile court dated September 9, 2021 

that ordered J.Y.Y. and H.Y. returned to the care of J.Y. (Father). We 

previously granted the Agency’s request for judicial notice filed August 18, 

2021 establishing that six of the eight children had been returned to Father’s 

care on July 28, 2021. The Agency seeks to dismiss these appeals arguing 

that the transition of J.Y.Y. and H.Y. to Father’s care rendered the appeals 

regarding the adequacy of the ICWA inquiry moot because all the children 

are now in parental custody. If we deny its dismissal motion, the Agency 

concedes that further ICWA inquiry is needed. 

Mother opposes the request for judicial notice. Assuming we grant the 

Agency’s request for judicial notice, Mother contends that the appeals should 

not be dismissed as moot. Even if we find the appeals to be moot, Mother 

argues that the appeals should not be dismissed because they raise an 

important issue that is capable of repetition yet evading review. 

We grant the Agency’s request for judicial notice and its motion to 

dismiss the appeals. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676 [appellate 

courts routinely consider limited postjudgment evidence in connection with 

motions to dismiss].) 
3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and Father (parents) are married and have nine children who, 

at the beginning of this dependency proceeding, ranged in age from two to 

17 years old: A.Y., J.Y.Y., H.Y., Du.Y., J.J.Y., J.Y., D.Y., J.I.Y., and J.E.Y. In 

January 2020, the Agency filed petitions pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1),1 alleging a protracted 

history of domestic violence between the parents.2 The petitions also alleged

that despite a history of mental health concerns and substance abuse, Mother 

continues to abuse alcohol. 

Mother initially reported having Sioux heritage through her father’s 

family. Mother, however, is not a registered member of a tribe and stated 

“that was generations ago.” Mother then reported that her cousin informed 

her that the family’s Indian ancestry is Cherokee. Mother’s first cousin 

stated that her great-great-great-grandmother was a “full blooded Cherokee.” 

At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children detained at 

Polinsky Children’s Center, an approved foster home, the home of an 

approved relative, or the home of a nonrelative extended family member. At 

the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing in August 2020, the juvenile 

court sustained the petitions, removed the children from their parents, found 

a reasonable inquiry had been made to determine whether the children were 

Indian children, and concluded that ICWA did not apply. On April 16, 2021, 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code. 

2 The eldest child, J.E.Y., turned 18 in April 2020 and the juvenile court 

terminated its jurisdiction as to this child in August 2020. The remaining 

eight children are referred to as “the children.” 
4

at the combined six- and 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court made 

various orders. Appellants timely appealed.3 

DISCUSSION

“ ‘An issue becomes moot when some event has occurred which 

“deprive[s] the controversy of its life.” [Citation.] The policy behind a 

mootness dismissal is that “courts decide justiciable controversies and will 

normally not render advisory opinions.” ’ [Citations.] The voluntary 

cessation of allegedly wrongful conduct destroys the justiciability of a 

controversy and renders an action moot unless there is a reasonable 

expectation the allegedly wrongful conduct will be repeated.” (Center for 

Local Government Accountability v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 

1146, 1157.) 

“ICWA notice is required to be sent whenever it is known or there is 

reason to know that an Indian child is involved in a ‘ “child custody 

proceeding” ’ within the meaning of ICWA, which includes a proceeding for 

temporary or long-term foster care or guardianship placement, termination of 

parental rights, preadoptive placement after termination of parental rights, 

or adoptive placement. [Citations.]” (In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 

903-904.) “ICWA does not apply to a proceeding to place an Indian child with 

a parent.” (In re J.B. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 751, 758.) Because the children 

have been placed with Father, appellants’ challenge to the adequacy of the 

ICWA inquiry is now moot. Nevertheless, the underlying dependency case 

and ICWA’s duty of inquiry are ongoing. We therefore may address the 

3 Specifically, J.Y.Y. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders: (1) for a 

higher level of care under section 387, (2) for supervised visits with Father 

under section 388, and (3) for out-of-home placement under section 366.21, 

subdivision (f). Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s orders for 

supervised visitation and continued out of home placement for the children, 

and its finding that she received reasonable services. 
5

merits of appellants’ claim if it is reasonably probable that issues concerning 

ICWA compliance could arise again—for example, if supplemental petitions 

were filed removing the children from Father. (§ 387; see Fallbrook Sanitary 

Dist. v. San Diego Local Agency Formation Com. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 753, 

757 [“where the issues raised on appeal affect the general public interest and 

there is a reasonable probability that the same questions will again be 

litigated, an appellate court may, although the appeal is subject to dismissal, 

adjudicate the issues involved”]; see also In re Yvonne W. (2008) 

165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404 [“a reviewing court may 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”].) The record here does not show 

such a reasonable probability that issues concerning ICWA compliance could 

arise again, or evade review. 

At the beginning of the dependency proceeding, Father had the six 

older children in his care and Mother had the three youngest children in her 

care. The parents have a history of domestic violence, Father has 

experienced housing instability, and Mother has a history of substance abuse. 

The addendum report filed just before the juvenile court issued the 

challenged orders states that the four oldest children do not want to visit 

Mother. The Agency remained concerned about Mother’s drug use, with the 

social worker opining that despite Mother’s participation “in many 

therapeutic settings” she “has not gained insight or has made any behavioral 

changes.” In contrast, Father had secured a three-bedroom apartment and 

regularly visited the children. The social worker noted that Father was 

active in his services and made progress in his domestic violence class and in 

individual therapy.
6

The juvenile court’s recent orders returning the remaining two children 

to Father shows that he is continuing to do well and it is more likely than not 

that jurisdiction will be terminated at the 18-month date. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals as moot. If, in the future, 

appellants believe that grounds exist to invalidate the proceedings, they may 

file an appropriate petition under ICWA. (25 U.S.C. § 1914.) 

DISPOSITION

The appeals are dismissed as moot. 

GUERRERO, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.