Filed 3/25/21 In re E.V.-L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.V.-L., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Edgar V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B305523

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06381A)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Dismissed.

Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant 

County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

_______________________

The Department removed infant E.V.-L. from her mother’s 

custody after mother tested positive for amphetamine and 

methamphetamine at E.V.-L.’s birth. The Department alleged as 

bases for jurisdiction that mother abused drugs, preventing her 

from properly caring for the child; that mother had failed to 

reunite with a previous child; and that father Edgar V. was a 

daily user of marijuana, preventing him from properly caring for 

the child. The juvenile court sustained each allegation and 

detained E.V.-L. Father appeals the jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders as to himself but does not challenge the 

jurisdictional or dispositional orders relating to mother. Because 

father’s contentions, even if meritorious, would not justify a 

reversal of the court’s jurisdictional order or the grant of any 

effective relief, we decline to address them and dismiss the 

appeal. 

I

The Department received a referral regarding E.V.-L. when 

mother refused to give a urine sample for a drug test at E.V.-L.’s 

birth. Mother had tested positive for amphetamines at the birth 

of a child three years earlier and failed to reunify with that child 

due to substance abuse issues. When mother ultimately provided 

a sample, it was positive for amphetamines. 

Department social workers visited mother in the hospital to 

discuss the positive test result. Mother admitted to using 

marijuana but denied using amphetamines, claiming the positive 

result was due to medication taken while she was in the hospital. 

Further analysis of the sample later confirmed the presence of 

both amphetamine and methamphetamine. 
3

The Department obtained a removal order and detained 

E.V.-L. from mother at the hospital, placing her in foster care. 

Mother identified father as the biological father of E.V.-L. 

The Department spoke with father a few days after E.V.-L.’s 

birth. Father agreed to come in and provide a statement that 

day. The Department said it would like him to complete a drug 

test. Father then said he could not come in that day, but could 

the following day. Father told the social worker that he used 

marijuana usually once a day to deal with knee pain. Father said 

he would be willing to switch to another method of pain relief if 

necessary to care for E.V.-L. Father did not show up for his 

appointment and drug test the next day. 

At the detention hearing, the court found father to be the 

presumed father of E.V.-L. The juvenile court ordered E.V.-L.

detained from mother and father. The juvenile court ordered 

father and various relatives investigated for potential placement. 

After the hearing, the Department sought to speak with 

father, but father missed many appointments and stopped 

returning the Department’s calls and text messages. The 

Department evaluated the possibility of placement with father 

while living with a paternal aunt or paternal grandmother and 

found neither was appropriate given prior substantiated 

allegations of abuse and neglect by both paternal aunt and 

paternal grandmother. Father did not visit E.V.-L. 

Father did not appear at the next adjudication and 

disposition hearing. The juvenile court sustained a section 300 

petition finding true that mother has a history of substance abuse 

and is a current abuser of amphetamine and methamphetamine, 

rendering her incapable of providing E.V.-L. with proper care and 

supervision; that mother failed to reunify with a previous child 
4

due to substance abuse; and that father is a daily user of 

marijuana, which renders him incapable of providing E.V.-L.

with proper care and supervision. The court ordered 

reunification services for father, including a full drug and alcohol 

program with aftercare, random on-demand drug testing, a 

12-step program, parenting classes, individual counseling, and 

monitored visitation. Father’s counsel objected to all of the 

services except the on-demand drug testing. 

Father appeals the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of 

the court as they relate to him. During the pendency of the 

appeal, the juvenile court held a review hearing on September 30, 

2020. The juvenile court terminated father’s reunification 

services because he had not made substantial progress. The 

court set a permanency planning hearing for January 25, 2021. 

We take judicial notice of the September 30, 2020 minute order 

from this hearing. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

At our request, the Department and father each filed a 

supplemental brief addressing whether subsequent events and 

proceedings rendered the appeal moot. With its supplemental 

brief, the Department filed a motion asking us to take judicial 

notice of the September 2, 2020 minute order and the report the 

Department filed with the court in advance of the September 30, 

2020 hearing. Because the September 2 order and report provide 

the basis for the September 30, 2020 order, we grant the motion. 

(Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 909; In re 

Salvador M. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422.)

II

This case does not warrant an exercise of our discretion to 

reach the merits of father’s appeal. 
5

A

Appellate courts will consider only appeals that present 

justiciable issues. (See In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 

1489–1490 (I.A.) [citing 13B Wright et al., Federal Practice and 

Procedure (3d ed. 2008) § 3532.1, pp. 372–374].) An important 

aspect of justiciability is whether effective relief is available—can 

the court provide a remedy that will have a practical and tangible 

impact on the parties? (I.A., at p. 1490.) 

In the dependency context, issues of justiciability often 

arise when a parent seeks review of a jurisdictional finding that 

is only one of multiple bases for the juvenile court’s exercise of 

jurisdiction over a child. This is because a jurisdictional finding 

involving one parent “ ‘is good against both.’ ” (In re X.S. (2010) 

190 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161.) A finding against either parent is 

sufficient to bring a child within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. 

(I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1491–1492.) And an exercise 

of jurisdiction over a child allows the court to impose orders 

relating to either parent, even a nonoffending parent. (Id. at 

p. 1492.) Thus, an appellate court may decline to address the 

merits of additional jurisdictional findings where one such 

finding stands. (Ibid.) 

B

Father appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders as to him. Neither he nor mother has 

challenged the jurisdictional or dispositional orders as to mother. 

As discussed above, this means that, even were we to overturn 

the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding as to father, E.V.-L.

would remain a dependent of the court. This also means the 

juvenile court would have the power to impose dispositional 

orders on father. Father does not identify any effective relief we 
6

could provide. Under these circumstances, father’s appeal raises 

only academic and abstract questions. We decline to address 

them. 

Father acknowledges we may decline to consider his appeal 

given the justiciability issue. However, he argues we should 

exercise our discretion in his case for four reasons. 

First, father argues the jurisdictional order served as the 

basis for the dispositional order he is also appealing. Father 

objected at the hearing to all services ordered, except on-demand 

testing. At the September 30, 2020 review hearing, the juvenile 

court terminated services due to father’s lack of progress. 

Father’s appeal of the dispositional order is now moot. A moot 

appeal of an inoperative dispositional order does not persuade us 

to exercise our discretion. 

Second, father argues that, if we reverse the jurisdictional 

finding as to him, he would become a nonoffending parent and 

could immediately take custody of E.V.-L. This is inaccurate. 

The Department evaluated the possibility of placing E.V.-L. with 

father at the paternal aunt or paternal grandmother’s homes and 

found both unsuitable. Father has refused to cooperate with any 

investigation by the Department. Thus, the Department has not 

been able to assess whether any placement with father would be 

appropriate. Given father’s daily marijuana use and the lack of 

any evidence he will alter his conduct, it is speculative whether 

the Department ever will place E.V.-L. with father. Because the 

juvenile court has asserted jurisdiction over E.V.-L., it has the 

power to impose orders on father, even if he were a nonoffending 

parent. Father’s failure to comply with past court orders raises 

further doubts about whether E.V.-L. could be placed with him as 

a nonoffending parent. 
7

Third, father argues his case raises the issue of “lawful 

casual marijuana use,” an issue of broad public importance 

capable of evading review. This is not an accurate 

characterization of this case. Father uses marijuana daily for 

pain relief. He claimed to have a medical marijuana card, but he 

has never produced it to the Department. Thus, even assuming 

lawful casual marijuana use is an issue of broad public 

importance, this case does not present it. 

Finally, father argues the juvenile court’s order “could have 

legal ramifications for appellant in future dependency or family 

law proceedings.” This type of speculative argument does not 

warrant an exercise of our discretion.

DISPOSITION

We dismiss the appeal.

WILEY, J. 

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. 

GRIMES, J.