Filed 6/21/24 In re Katie M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 KATIE M. et al., Persons 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B326048

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

22CCJP03310)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARTA P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay, Judge. Dismissed as moot.
2

Thomas R. O’Brien, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Marta P.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

_____________________________

Marta P. (Mother) appeals from the jurisdiction findings 

and disposition order declaring 13-year-old Katie M. and fiveyear-old Dylan M. dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), and former

subdivision (b)(1),

1 after the court sustained allegations that the 

children were at substantial risk of serious harm because Mother 

and Medardo M. (Father) engaged in domestic violence, including 

an incident in July 2022 when Father punched Mother in the 

face.

On August 29, 2023, during the pendency of the appeal, the 

juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and entered a juvenile 

custody order granting Mother and Father joint legal and 

physical custody of the children. Because we cannot provide 

Mother any effective relief, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

1 The Legislature amended section 300, effective January 1, 

2023, in part by revising subdivision (b)(1) to specify in separate 

subparagraphs ways in which a child may come within the 

jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to the failure or inability of 

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

the child. Further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 23, 2022 the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (Department) filed a non-detain

petition under section 300, subdivision (a), and former 

subdivision (b)(1). The Department alleged under subdivision (a) 

that Mother and Father had a history of engaging in violent 

altercations, and on July 4, 2022 Father punched Mother in the 

face in front of Katie. The petition further alleged under former 

subdivision (b)(1) that Mother failed to protect the children by 

allowing Father to reside in the home and have unlimited access 

to the children. 

In interviews with the Department social worker, Mother 

explained she had been watching fireworks outside her home on 

July 4, 2022 when Father arrived home from work. Mother and 

Father began to argue, and Father punched Mother in the face. 

Mother filed a police report on July 12. She told police there had 

been four prior unreported domestic violence incidents with 

Father. She also stated she had not reported the incident earlier 

because Father was threatening to take her children away from 

her. 

Mother’s story changed during the course of the 

Department’s investigation. She initially told the Department 

the children were inside the house during the incident and did 

not see Father hit her. However, she later admitted Katie had 

seen the incident and explained she could not be honest during 

her first interview with the social worker because Katie was 

listening and would tell her Father what Mother said. Mother 

explained Father controlled her actions—she could not drive, did

not have any control of her finances, and did not have access to 
4

her identification papers. In addition, Father monitored her 

telephone calls. Father’s adult daughter, Cindy M., and Katie 

reported Mother’s actions to Father. Once the Department 

became involved, Father told Mother that if she did not deny he 

had abused her, he would take the children away from her. 

The Department interviewed Mother’s cousin Rosa S., who 

corroborated Mother’s account. Rosa said Father was controlling 

and abusive and Mother’s statements were coached by Father 

and Cindy. She claimed Father monitored Mother’s movements 

by tracking her cell phone and Katie reported Mother’s behavior 

to Father. Rosa had accompanied Mother to the police station to 

file the police report on July 12, and Cindy must have tracked 

Mother’s phone because Cindy later asked Mother why she had 

been at the police station. Further, while Rosa was waiting 

outside the courtroom for the detention hearing to begin, she

heard Father tell Mother to “be careful as to what you are going 

to say.”

Father denied hitting Mother. He stated that “nothing 

happened besides simple family issues that happen all the time.” 

He claimed he and Mother were on good terms and “everything is 

perfectly fine.” 

At the October 18, 2022 jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in both 

counts of the dependency petition as to Mother and Father and 

declared Katie and Dylan dependents of the juvenile court.2 The 

2 Under section 300, subdivision (a), the juvenile court may 

adjudge a child to be a dependent of the juvenile court if “[t]he 

child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will 

suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally upon the 

child by the child’s parent or guardian.” (See In re Cole L. (2021) 
5

court allowed the children to remain in their parents’ care under 

the Department’s supervision on the condition that Father reside 

in the guest house on the family’s property. The court also 

entered a temporary restraining order preventing Father from 

coming within 100 yards of Mother other than when he was 

coming to, going from, or in the guest house.3 The court ordered 

Father to attend a 52-week domestic violence counseling program 

and Mother to participate in domestic violence support groups. 

The court ordered Mother and Father to participate in parenting 

classes and individual counseling. Mother timely appealed.

At the July 21, 2023 review hearing (§ 364), the juvenile 

court terminated jurisdiction over the children, and on 

August 29, 2023 the court entered a juvenile custody order

granting Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of 

Katie and Dylan.4

70 Cal.App.5th 591, 603 [“a finding under section 300, 

subdivision (a), requires evidence of a risk of physical injury 

‘inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child’”].) It is not clear from 

the record why the juvenile court sustained the allegation under 

section 300, subdivision (a), with respect to Mother as an 

offending party, given that the allegation was principally based 

on Father’s July 2022 physical abuse of Mother. At the 

jurisdiction hearing Mother argued she was a non-offending 

parent and should be dismissed from the petition, but she did not 

focus on the allegation under section 300, subdivision (a). 

3 On March 21, 2023, after a hearing, the juvenile court 

issued a permanent restraining order against Father that expires 

on March 21, 2026. 

4 On October 30, 2023 we granted Mother’s request to take 

judicial notice of the final custody orders. On our own motion we
6

DISCUSSION

A. Mootness and Dependency Appeals

“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.”’” (In re D.P. (2023) 

14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.).) “A case becomes moot when events 

‘“render[ ] it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in 

favor of plaintiff, to grant [the plaintiff] any effect[ive] relief.”’ 

[Citation.] 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.” (Ibid.) In other 

words, “relief is effective when it ‘can have a practical, tangible 

impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status.’ [Citation.] It 

follows that, to show a need for effective relief, the plaintiff must 

first demonstrate that he or she has suffered from a change in 

legal status.” (Id. at p. 277.) “Although a jurisdictional finding 

that a parent engaged in abuse or neglect of a child is generally 

stigmatizing, complaining of ‘stigma’ alone is insufficient to 

sustain an appeal. The stigma must be paired with some effect 

on the plaintiff’s legal status that is capable of being redressed by 

a favorable court decision.” (Ibid.)

Even where an appeal is moot, however, “courts may 

exercise their ‘inherent discretion’ to reach the merits of the 

dispute.” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) As the Supreme 

also take judicial notice of the March 21 and July 21, 2023 

minute orders. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
7

Court explained in D.P., reviewing courts will generally exercise 

their discretion when the case presents an issue of broad public 

interest that is likely to recur, there may be a recurrence of the 

controversy between the parties, or a material question remains 

for the court to determine. (Ibid.) The court also identified 

additional factors reviewing courts may evaluate when 

considering whether to exercise their discretion to decide a moot 

case, including whether a challenged jurisdiction finding could 

impact current or future dependency proceedings, and the nature 

of the allegations against the parent (with more egregious 

findings showing a parent’s greater interest in challenging the 

findings). (Id. at pp. 285-286.) In addition, courts may consider 

why the appeal became moot; for example, principles of fairness 

may favor discretionary review of cases rendered moot “by the 

prompt compliance or otherwise laudable behavior of the parent 

challenging the jurisdictional finding on appeal.” (Id. at p. 286.) 

“It would perversely incentivize noncompliance if mootness 

doctrine resulted in the availability of appeals from jurisdictional 

findings only for parents who are less compliant or for whom the 

court has issued additional orders.” (Ibid.)

B. Termination of the Juvenile Court’s Jurisdiction Moots 

Mother’s Appeal

Mother’s appeal challenges only the jurisdiction findings 

made by the juvenile court. She does not challenge the 

disposition order, nor has she appealed the court’s order 

terminating jurisdiction. Because the court no longer has 

jurisdiction over Katie and Dylan or the ability to conduct further 

hearings in the now-closed case, we can provide no effective 

relief—that is, relief that “‘can have a practical, tangible impact 
8

on the partis’ conduct or legal status.’”5 (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th 

at p. 277; see In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 163 

[“[a]n order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction generally 

renders an appeal from an earlier order moot”].)

Mother contends her appeal is not moot because the 

juvenile court’s findings under section 300, subdivision (a), could 

subject her to inclusion in the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI). 

(See Pen. Code, § 11169, subd. (a) [providing designated agencies, 

including the Department, “shall forward to the Department of 

Justice a report in writing of every case it investigates of known 

or suspected child abuse or severe neglect that is determined to 

be substantiated, other than cases coming within subdivision (b) 

of Section 11165.2,” which defines “‘[g]eneral neglect’”].) 

Mother’s claim is speculative. Had the Department 

reported Mother to the Department of Justice for inclusion on the 

CACI, it would have been required to provide her with notice of 

5 Even if Mother’s appeal were not moot due to the juvenile 

court’s termination of jurisdiction, it would be moot (not 

justiciable) based on Father’s failure to appeal the jurisdiction 

findings against him, which provide a sufficient and independent 

basis for affirming dependency jurisdiction over the children

regardless of any alleged error in the findings against Mother. 

(See In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 309 [“we need 

not address jurisdictional findings involving one parent where 

there are unchallenged findings involving the other parent”]; In 

re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492, [“a jurisdictional 

finding involving one parent is ‘“good against both. . . . [T]he 

minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [him] 

within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent”’”]; see also 

D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 283-284 [“where there are multiple 

findings against one parent[,] the validity of one finding may 

render moot the parent’s attempt to challenge the others”].)
9

the report. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 279; In re C.F. 

(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 454, 462 [“[t]he reporting agency must 

notify the known or suspected child abuser that he or she has 

been reported to the CACI”]; see also Pen. Code, § 11169, 

subd. (c).) Mother does not claim she has received notification of 

such a report, and in her reply brief she concedes it is possible the 

Department did not make a report. Absent evidence in the record 

that the Department submitted a report, Mother’s claim is “too 

speculative to survive a mootness challenge.” (D.P., at p. 280 

[rejecting Father’s argument appeal was not moot because 

challenged jurisdiction finding could result in inclusion in the 

CACI].)

Mother alternatively requests that we exercise our 

discretion to hear the merits of her appeal because the 

jurisdiction findings may result in prejudice in a future 

dependency or family law proceeding or have a negative impact 

on her employment or immigration status. This is precisely the 

type of speculative future harm the Supreme Court has held is 

insufficient to avoid mootness. (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at 

pp. 277-278.) Moreover, in any future dependency or family law 

proceeding, Mother will be able to demonstrate she was not 

alleged to be the perpetrator of domestic violence (and was only 

alleged with respect to the July 2022 incident to have failed to 

protect the children), she was the protected party in the 

restraining order, and the juvenile court never detained the 

children from her in this case.
10

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

FEUER, J.

We concur:

MARTINEZ, P. J.

SEGAL, J.