Filed 11/17/21 In re E.M. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re E.M et al., Persons 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

B309525

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.M. and S.W.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

20CCJP04752

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Julie F. Blackshaw, Judge. Conditionally 

reversed and remanded in part; dismissed in part.

Pamela Deavours, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant N.M.

Lori Siegal, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant S.W.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of dependency proceedings concerning 

L.M. (mother),1 and her two children, E.M. and L.W. In the 

underlying proceedings, the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction 

over the children under Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 

300, subdivisions (a) and (b) and ordered mother and the 

children’s respective fathers, N.M. and S.W., to participate in 

services.

On appeal, N.M., E.M.’s father, contends only that the

Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed 

to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian 

Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. N.M.

therefore seeks remand with directions for the Department to 

perform further inquiry in compliance with section 224.2, 

subdivision (e). The Department concedes it did not conduct an 

adequate inquiry and thus the matter must be remanded to the

juvenile court for further ICWA inquiry and notice. For the 

reasons stated below, we agree and conditionally reverse the 

court’s disposition orders and remand the matter to the juvenile 

court so they may comply with ICWA requirements. 

Separately, S.W., L.W.’s father, challenges the portion of 

the dispositional order requiring him to participate in services. 

The Department contends S.W.’s appeal is moot. We agree and 

dismiss his appeal. 

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal. 

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code. 
3

BACKGROUND

In August 2020, mother and her partner, A.S., engaged in a 

domestic violence incident in E.M.’s presence. E.M. was knocked 

down during the incident. L.W. was not present at the time. L.W.

lived with S.W. pursuant to a family law court order. During its 

investigation, the Department discovered mother had engaged in 

a separate domestic violence incident with S.W. in March 2020.

The police found mother was the aggressor in that incident.

In September 2020, the Department filed a petition on the 

children’s behalf under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The 

petition alleged the children were at substantial risk of serious 

physical harm due to mother’s domestic violence incidents with 

A.S. and with S.W., and mother’s failure to protect the children

by allowing A.S. to have unlimited access to them.3 The ICWA010 forms attached to the petition indicated mother denied any 

knowledge of Indian ancestry.

While the detention report also indicated mother denied 

any known Indian ancestry, at the September 2020 detention 

hearing mother claimed her maternal grandmother might have

Indian ancestry. She claimed her father would have more 

information. Consequently, the juvenile court ordered the 

Department to interview mother and maternal grandfather about 

possible maternal Indian ancestry. The juvenile court also 

ordered the Department to notice the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

3 Initially, the petition also asserted one count against S.W. 

alleging he failed to protect L.W. from mother by allowing her to 

have unlimited access to L.W. even though he knew or reasonably 

should have known mother's history of drug abuse. The 

Department, however, subsequently dismissed that count. 
4

The juvenile court subsequently issued orders authorizing 

the Department to detain E.M. and L.W. from mother, and to 

detain E.M. from N.M. The juvenile court found L.W.’s detention 

from S.W. was not necessary. 

At the December 2020 adjudication hearing, the juvenile 

court sustained the counts against mother and declared the 

children dependents of the court. The juvenile court found both 

fathers were “non-offending” because the counts in the petition 

related only to mother’s conduct. The juvenile court removed both 

children from mother’s custody. E.M. was also removed from 

N.M. and placed with her paternal aunt. L.W. was released to

S.W. Over S.W.’s objections, the juvenile court ordered him to 

complete a case plan consisting of drug testing, a parenting 

program, participation in family preservation services, and 

individual counseling. At the same hearing, the juvenile court

also found ICWA did not apply. 

During the pendency of this appeal, the Department filed a

status review report in preparation for the six-month status 

review hearing. The Department reported S.W. successfully 

completed all court-ordered drug testing, a parenting class, 

family preservation services, and individual counseling.

Subsequently, at the status review hearing held in June 2021, 

the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction for L.W. and awarded 

S.W. sole legal and physical custody.4

4 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of juvenile court 

minute orders from two June 2021 hearings post-dating the 

notice of the appeal. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a) [reviewing 

court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in Evid. 

Code, § 452], 452, subd. (d)(1) [judicial notice may be taken of 

“[r]ecords of any court of this state”].)
5

DISCUSSION

I. ICWA

As stated above, N.M. argues the Department failed to 

satisfy its inquiry obligations under ICWA by failing to interview 

maternal grandfather in compliance with section 224.2, 

subdivision (e). He therefore asks us to remand with directions 

for the Department to perform further inquiry into mother’s 

potential Indian heritage. 

The Department acknowledges the record does not contain 

evidence of its communication with maternal grandfather, ICWA 

notice return receipts, or responses from the noticed tribes. It 

therefore concedes it failed to fully comply with the requirements 

of ICWA. Consequently, the Department agrees we should order 

a limited remand to the juvenile court so the Department may 

conduct proper inquiry and notice under ICWA with respect to 

mother. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the parties. 

II. Challenge to the Court-Ordered Case Plan

“An appellate court will not review questions which are 

moot and only of academic importance, nor will it determine 

abstract questions of law at the request of a party who shows no 

substantial rights can be affected by the decision either way.

[Citation.] An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the 

respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for 

the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief. 

[Citations.]” (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 

1054-1055.) “[T]he case ‘is not moot if the purported error is of 
6

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 case-by-case basis.’ [Citation.]” (In 

re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1547, emphasis 

omitted.)“Courts also have discretion to resolve appeals that are 

technically moot if they present important questions affecting the 

public interest that are capable of repetition yet evade review. 

[Citation.]” (In re J.P. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 616, 623.) An appeal 

that has been rendered moot is subject to dismissal. (In re Jessica 

K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.) 

As stated above, S.W. was a non-offending parent as his 

actions were not the basis for any of the sustained allegations in 

the petition. Additionally, S.W. completed his case plan and the 

juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over L.W. The order

terminating jurisdiction was in favor of S.W. and does not form 

the basis of any adverse custody ruling. (In re N.S. (2016) 245 

Cal.App.4th 53, 61.) S.W. has not shown, and we cannot 

ascertain, how the issuance of the court-ordered case plan in and 

of itself would prejudice him, and therefore how reversal of the 

portion of the disposition order requiring him to participate in 

services would provide him with any effective relief. Additionally, 

the juvenile court custody order granting S.W. full legal and 

physical custody does not affect his rights. (See In re Briana V. 

(2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 309 [termination of dependency 

jurisdiction does not necessarily moot appeal if challenged finding 

could have consequences for appellant beyond jurisdiction]; see 

also In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 436 [“‘“[a]n issue is 

not moot if the purported error infects the outcome of subsequent 

proceedings.”’[Citation.]”]; In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 
7

1426, 1431-1432 [appeal from jurisdiction findings is not moot 

where sustained findings have an adverse effect on custody or 

visitation rights].)

Because we cannot grant S.W. any effective relief by 

reversing the portion of the dispositional order requiring him to 

participate in services, we dismiss S.W.’s appeal as moot. (See In 

re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 [“Our decision here 

would not affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding; 

therefore we cannot grant effective relief. [Citation.]”].)
8

DISPOSITION

With respect to N.M.’s appeal, the disposition order is 

conditionally reversed with instructions to inquire into mother’s 

potential Indian heritage and, if relevant information not 

contained in previous notices sent in this case is discovered, send 

out new notices to the relevant tribes in accordance with ICWA 

and California law. The Department shall thereafter inform the 

juvenile court of its findings and actions, and the court shall hold 

a hearing to determine whether the ICWA inquiry and notice 

requirements have been satisfied and whether E.M. is an Indian 

child. If the juvenile court finds she is an Indian child, it shall 

proceed in conformity with ICWA and related California law. If 

the court finds she is not an Indian child, the court’s December 4, 

2020 order shall be reinstated. The matter is remanded to the 

juvenile court for compliance with the inquiry and notice 

provisions of ICWA and related California law as directed herein. 

With respect to S.W., his appeal is dismissed as moot. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J. 

We concur: 

WILLHITE, Acting P.J. 

COLLINS, J.