Filed 9/13/23 In re Alexa S. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re Alexa S., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B316979

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

21CCJP04693A

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Karriem Baker, under appointment for the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Dylan Roy, Senior Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

The juvenile court removed then-infant Alexa S. from the 

custody of her father, Juan D., and ordered family enhancement 

services after it sustained a petition pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, former subdivision (b)(1) (failure to 

protect),

1

finding that Juan had sexually abused Alexa’s mother, 

Dolores R., when Dolores was 13 years old and Juan was 24 years 

old, which led to Alexa’s birth and criminal charges against Juan 

for statutory rape, and that he had violated court orders 

prohibiting him from contacting Dolores. While acknowledging 

the undisputed evidence of sexual abuse, Juan contends on 

appeal there was no evidence Alexa was at any risk of serious 

physical harm to support the court’s jurisdiction finding and 

disposition order. Juan’s jurisdiction challenge has been mooted 

by subsequent events. We affirm the disposition order.

1

The Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 300, effective January 1, 2023, in part by rewriting 

subdivision (b)(1), to now specify in separate subparagraphs 

various ways in which a child may come within the jurisdiction of 

the juvenile court as a result of the failure or inability of the 

child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or care for the 

child. 

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.
3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Section 300 Petition and Detention Proceeding

In October 2021 the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition alleging 

Juan’s sexual abuse of Dolores and his failure to abide by nocontact orders placed Alexa at substantial risk of serious physical 

harm (§ 300, former subd. (b)(1)). The petition also alleged under 

section 300, former subdivision (b)(1), that Dolores suffered from 

depression and suicidal ideation that rendered her unable to care 

for Alexa and placed Alexa at substantial risk of serious physical 

harm.

According to the Department’s detention report filed 

October 2021, Juan and Dolores met when she was 12 and onehalf years old and became sexually intimate when she was 

13 years old and he was 24 years old. Juan told Dolores to keep 

their relationship secret because he could get into trouble. A few 

months after their physical relationship began, Dolores 

discovered she was pregnant. Juan did not want the baby; but,

by the time Dolores learned she was pregnant, it was too late in 

the pregnancy for Dolores to obtain an abortion. 

In April 2021, when Alexa was born, Juan initially told the 

Department he was not Alexa’s father. Dolores, the subject of a 

separate dependency proceeding, was then living in foster care.2

In May 2021 the Department obtained Juan’s and Dolores’s 

consent to voluntary family maintenance services. Juan and 

2 A separate section 300 petition alleged, among other 

things, Dolores’s mother had failed to protect her from Juan’s 

sexual abuse. That petition was sustained in August 2021 and is 

not at issue in this appeal. 
4

Dolores agreed to have no contact with each other. When Alexa, 

born several weeks premature, was released from the hospital, 

she and Dolores lived together with Dolores’s foster parents. 

In August 2021 after Juan’s arrest on charges of statutory 

rape, Dolores exhibited signs of severe depression and expressed 

thoughts of suicide. Dolores told the Department Juan and his 

family had blamed her for exposing their sexual relationship and

placing Juan in legal jeopardy. Dolores said Juan had made clear 

to her he wanted “nothing to do with this baby.” Dolores also 

revealed Juan had provided her with cell phones so they could 

remain in contact despite the no-contact orders. Dolores’s foster 

parents stated Dolores was often on her cell phone and believed, 

based Dolores’s comments to them, she and Juan had been in 

frequent contact despite their voluntary family maintenance 

services agreement and the criminal court’s no-contact order. 

In September 2021 Dolores’s foster mother reported that 

Dolores had become extremely depressed. Dolores feared Juan 

could be deported and told her foster mother she wanted to run 

away with him. Dolores’s foster mother expressed concern about 

Dolores’s mental health and believed Dolores was more 

interested in Juan’s welfare than Alexa’s or her own. 

Juan neither visited Alexa nor maintained contact with the 

Department after he signed the voluntary family maintenance 

services agreement. The Department was finally able to contact 

Juan in October 2021 after Dolores provided the Department 

with Juan’s updated contact information. Juan denied being in 

contact with Dolores or purchasing cell phones to facilitate such 

contact. 

By the time of the detention hearing, Dolores had received 

emergency mental health treatment, including medication for her 
5

depression, and was feeling more stable. The court detained 

Alexa from Juan and released her to Dolores’s custody under the 

supervision of the Department with a court-ordered safety plan 

that included no contact with Juan pending the jurisdiction 

hearing. 

2. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

According to the Department’s jurisdiction/disposition 

report, Dolores told the Department’s social worker in November 

2021 that, when she and Juan first met, she did not tell him her 

age and he did not ask. Later she lied to him and told him she 

was 16 years old. Juan told her to keep their relationship secret 

because he was an adult, she was a child, and he could go to 

prison. When Juan was arrested, he threatened Dolores, telling 

her that “when he got out [of jail] he would come and kill my 

family and me.” Dolores initially did not tell anyone about the 

threat, but explained it was a significant reason for her fear and 

depression. She had since started taking medication for 

depression and was feeling better and able to care for Alexa. 

Dolores did not intend to run away with Juan, who wanted 

nothing to do with Alexa. She insisted she would never leave her 

baby. 

When the social worker interviewed Juan in November 

2021, he denied ever telling Dolores to keep their relationship 

secret. He said he did not know Dolores was a minor until after 

she became pregnant. Juan denied being in contact with Dolores

in violation of his agreement and criminal court no-contact orders. 

He also denied purchasing cell phones for Dolores or threatening 

her or her family. He acknowledged he had not remained in 

contact with the Department, but said he did not understand the 

voluntary family maintenance services contract he had signed. 
6

He had only finished first grade and did not know how to read

English, Spanish or Q’anjob’al, the dialect he and Dolores spoke. 

Juan stated he was told by the social worker not to contact 

Dolores and he had abided by that instruction. Juan stated he 

had not met his daughter and wanted a relationship with her. 

The court sustained the allegation against Juan under 

section 300, former subdivision (b)(1), and dismissed the 

allegation relating to Dolores. The court explained, “We tried to 

work with the mother and the father voluntarily to keep the two 

away from one another and to keep this baby safe after it was 

born because of the illegal sexual contact by the father. The 

father refuses to do that and thereby puts this mother and the 

child at risk of emotional and physical abuse.” 

Proceeding immediately to disposition the court removed 

Alexa from Juan, finding by clear and convincing evidence that 

Alexa was at risk of harm in Juan’s care and “[n]o services can be 

put in place to keep the child safe with [Juan].” The court 

released Alexa to Dolores in a home-of-parent order with family 

maintenance services. The court ordered family enhancement 

services for Juan, including monitored visitation in accordance 

with the conditions of the criminal protective order. The court set 

a section 364 review hearing for May 2022, which was later 

continued to August 2022.
7

3. Post-appeal proceedings

While the case was pending on appeal, the Department on 

August 9, 2022 filed a section 342 petition and a section 387 

petition. Each petition added a new allegation that Dolores had 

failed to provide Alexa with basic care and supervision. The 

court detained Alexa from Dolores.

At the October 2022 jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the 

section 387 petition, Dolores pleaded no contest to, and the court 

sustained, the failure-to-protect allegation and released Alexa to 

Dolores’s care with a home-of-parent order. The court dismissed 

the section 342 petition without prejudice.

3

DISCUSSION

1. Juan’s Jurisdiction Challenge Is Moot

“A court is tasked with the duty to decide actual 

controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and 

not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, 

or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the 

matter in issue in the case before it. A case becomes moot when 

events render it impossible for a court, if it should decide the case 

in favor of plaintiff, to grant him any effective relief. For relief to 

be effective, two requirements must be met. First, the plaintiff 

must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm must be

redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the 

plaintiff seeks.” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.)

[cleaned up].) 

Juan contends the court’s jurisdiction finding is not 

supported by any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that 

3 On April 19, 2023 we granted the Department’s request for 

judicial notice of the juvenile court’s October 12, 2022 minute 

order and the sustained section 387 petition.
8

his sexual abuse of Dolores, which he concedes occurred, posed 

any danger to Alexa. However, even if we were to agree with 

Juan and reverse the jurisdiction finding as to him, jurisdiction 

over Alexa would continue based on the juvenile court’s sustained 

supplemental section 387 petition concerning Dolores. (See In re 

Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308 [“the minor is a 

dependent if the actions of either parent bring [the minor] within 

one of the statutory definitions of a dependent”]; In re I.A. (2011) 

201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Accordingly, we cannot grant Juan 

any effective relief. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283 [where 

“jurisdictional findings have been made as to both parents but 

only one parent brings a challenge, the appeal may be rendered 

moot”].)4

2. The Court’s Disposition Order Removing Alexa from 

Juan’s Custody Is Supported By Substantial Evidence

The paramount purpose of the dependency laws “is to 

provide maximum safety and protection for children who are 

currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being 

neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, 

and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk 

of that harm.” (§ 300.2, subd. (a); see In re Cole L. (2021) 

4

Juan does not identify, nor can we conceive of, any basis 

warranting discretionary review of the court’s now-moot 

jurisdiction finding, given the undisputed nature of Juan’s sexual 

misconduct. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 285-287 [court

may consider on a case-by-case basis whether it is appropriate to 

exercise discretionary review despite mootness of issue, keeping 

in mind the overarching goal of providing maximum protection 

for children with a focus on preserving the family whenever 

possible].)
9

70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 

289.)

After a dependency petition has been sustained pursuant to 

section 300, the court may order a child removed from the 

physical custody of a parent based on its finding, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that the child would be at substantial risk of 

physical or emotional harm if the parent were to live with the 

child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can 

be protected without removal. (§ 361, subds. (c)(1) [parent with 

whom the child resided at the time the petition was initiated], 

(d) [parent with whom the child did not reside at the time the 

petition was initiated]; In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 

135; see In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 347.) “The 

parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been 

actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the 

statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re D.B. (2018) 

26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328; accord, In re T.V., at pp. 135-136; In re 

T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

Because an order for removal under section 361, 

subdivisions (c) and (d), must be based on clear and convincing 

evidence, we “must determine whether the record, viewed as a 

whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable 

trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability 

demanded by this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. 

(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005; see In re Nathan E. (2021) 

61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123 [“[i]n reviewing for substantial evidence 

to support a dispositional order removing a child, we ‘keep[ ] in 

mind that the [juvenile] court was required to make its order 

based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence’”]; 

see generally In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [“‘In reviewing 
10

a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if 

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports 

them. “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable 

inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of 

the dependency court; we review the record in the light most 

favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues 

of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” 

[Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise 

independent judgment, but merely determine if there are 

sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court”’”].)

The “appellant has the burden to demonstrate there is no

evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the 

findings or orders.” (In re D.B., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at 

pp. 328-329.)

Without disputing his sexual abuse of Dolores when she 

was 13 years old and he was 24 years old, Juan contends that 

evidence, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate Alexa was 

at risk of harm in his custody. Whether or not that is correct, the 

record before the juvenile court contained far more evidence of 

the risk of harm to Alexa. Dolores told the Department Juan had 

threatened to kill her and her family for exposing his abuse and 

sending him to jail. Juan also repeatedly flouted court orders 

prohibiting him from being in contact with Dolores, 

demonstrating a no-contact order was insufficient to protect 

Alexa or Dolores while Alexa was in her custody. Given Juan’s 

threats and disregard of court orders, there was ample evidence 

to support the court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence 

that removal of Alexa from Juan’s custody was necessary and 

there were no other reasonable means to ensure Alexa’s safety. 
11

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s November 18, 2021 disposition order is 

affirmed. 

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.