Filed 7/16/24 In re T.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 T.A., et al., Persons Coming Under the Ju venile Court Law. B325535

( Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP01880A, B ) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. TRAVIS A., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C . Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee

. Dismissed as moot.
Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________2 Travis A., f

ather of T.A. and C.A. (Father)

, challenges the juvenile court’s findings and order on a Welfare and Insti tutions
Code 1 section 387 petition for a more restrictive placement . We dismiss the appeal as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2021, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging T.A. and C.A. were subject to t he jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant t o section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c), due to parental emotional abuse and
Father’s substance abuse. In a negotiated disposition , Father pleaded no contest to the section 300, subdivision (b) (1) allegat ions that he emotionally abus ed the children and endanger ed them by his marijuana abuse

. The court declared the children dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). Initially, the juvenile court ordered the children home of
parents. However, in May 2022, the children were removed from Father and a section 387 supplemental petition for a more restrictive placement was filed due to Father’s continued verbal aggression against the children. After a hearing, t he juvenile

court found true the allegation in the supplemental petition,
found the previous disposition had been in effective in protecting
the children , and modified the children’s placement to home of mother, Nicole P. ( Mother ) , with monitored visitation for Father. Father appeal s

.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 DISCUSSION
Father appeals the juvenile court’s order at the hearing on
the section 387 petition plac ing the children with their m other
and award ing him monitored visits. Father argues insufficient evidence supported the court ’ s finding that the previous dispositional orders were ineffective in protecting the children and its findings justifying removal

. However, more recently, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdicti on with an exit order awarding sole physical custody to M other , joint legal custody to both parents, and monitored visits for Father

. 2 There
is no indication that Father , or any other party, appealed from the exit order, and the time to do so has expired

. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406 (a)(1) .) DCFS contends this renders th e appeal moot, and w e agree. Father argues the appeal is not moot based on his belief that if we were to reverse the findings and orders on the petition
for a more restrictive placement, the matter “would be remanded to the family court with instructions to change the Custody Order so that it grants both [parents] joint physical and legal custody”
of the children. This is not the case. R eversing the findings and

or ders on the section 387 petition “could not deliver the desired
relief

— namely, a change in custody and/or visitation. Even after

2 We grant County Counsel’s request that we take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s March 20 and 27, 2023

, minute order s and the juvenile custody order entered Ma r ch 27, 2023

. (Evid. Code, § § 452 , 459 , subd. (a) ; In re M.B . (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 617, 627 [ “ postjudgment evidence may, in appropriate cases, be considered to determine whether an issue on appeal is moot ” ]

. ) We decline to take judicial notice of the remaining document in the request for judicial notice , Exhibit 1, as it is unnecessary for the resolution of the appeal.4

such reversal, the more recent custody and visitation terms contained in the exit order would govern. To effect an actual
cha nge in custody and visitation rights, the appellate court would need to reverse the juvenile court’s last word on custody and/or
visitation

— the exit order terminating jurisdiction on those

terms

— which

. . . the appellate court does not have the power to
do if that order has not been appealed.” ( In re S.G . (2021)

71 Cal.App.5th 65 4 , 666

– 667.) Therefore, even if the juvenile

court erred in finding that the original dispositional order was ineffective in protecting the children or i n finding that the
childre n would be at substantial risk if they were not removed
from Father’s custody, there would be no effect ive relief for us to
grant

. ( In re N.S . (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60 [ “the critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is
whethe r the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error”]); In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 [case is moot when events render it impossible for a court, if deciding the case in the appellant’s favor, to grant effective
reli ef].) “[T]he failure of the appellant

. . . to appeal an exit order
that both terminated jurisdiction and set forth the final custody and visitation arrangement mooted the appeal from the earlier dispositional order regarding custody and visitation.” ( In re S.G.,
at p. 667.)
F ather argues that even if the appeal is moot, we should exercise our discretionary authority to consider its merits because
“whether courts will continue to not find evidence at the heightened standard before they remov[e] physical custody from their parents” is an issue of broad public interest that is likely to

recur

. However, the legal standard for removal is clear and wel l

established, this highly particularized and fact

- based ruling does5

not appear to present any issues of broad public interest likely to

recur , and we see no indication of a miscarriage of justice in this

case. Father also contends there is “a material qu estion of custody” awaiting court determination, but custody of the
children w as determined by the juvenile court in the custody and
visitation exit order that Father did not appeal. Accordingly, while we acknowledge that “[e]ven when a case is moot, cour ts may exercise their ‘inherent discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute” ( In re D.P

. , supra , 1 4 Cal.5th at p. 282), there is no
reason to exercise that discretion here and we decline to do so.

D ISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot

.

NOT TO B E PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

GRIMES , J.

WILEY , J.