Filed 7/12/23 In re J.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.H., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

B318348

(Los Angeles County 

Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP03674A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Jason H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County. Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Dismissed as moot.

Brian Bitker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant 

County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy County Counsel,

for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Jason H. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional and dispositional orders. The juvenile court 

asserted jurisdiction over J.H. after finding Father had a history 

of domestic violence with mother that put J.H. at risk of serious 

physical harm. It also found jurisdiction over J.H. based on T.D.’s 

(Mother) substance abuse and Father’s failure to protect J.H.

Father appealed, contending that the evidence does not 

support the jurisdictional finding as to his domestic violence

history and the dispositional order removing J.H. from his care. 

While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court returned 

J.H. to Father. Because Father challenges the jurisdictional order

in so far as it impacts the dispositional order removing J.H., we 

dismiss the appeal as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Father is the presumed father of J.H. J.H. was born in 

2016.

DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 

petition on behalf of four-year-old J.H., alleging under subsections 

(a) and (b)(1) that Mother and Father had a history of engaging in 

violent verbal and physical altercations in the presence of J.H. 

The petition further alleged that Mother had a history of 

substance abuse including methamphetamine and amphetamine. 

The petition also alleged that Father failed to protect J.H. from 

Mother’s substance abuse. 

The juvenile court then ordered J.H. detained from both 

parents and granted monitored visitation.
3

At the December 2021 jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile 

court found that Mother’s substance abuse rendered her incapable 

of providing care to J.H. The court further found that Father 

knew of Mother’s substance abuse and failed to protect J.H. by 

allowing Mother to reside in the family home and have unlimited 

access to J.H.

The juvenile court further found that Father and Mother 

had a history of engaging in violent altercations in the presence of 

J.H. The court held that such violent conduct endangers J.H.’s 

physical safety and places J.H. at risk of serious physical harm. 

At the January 28, 2022 dispositional hearing, the court 

declared J.H. a dependent and removed him from Mother and 

Father’s care and custody. As part of his reunification services, 

the juvenile court ordered Father to participate in a domestic 

violence program, parenting education, and individual counseling. 

This appeal by Father followed. Mother did not appeal. 

On April 6, 2023, the juvenile court held a review hearing

and found that releasing J.H. to Father would not be a detriment 

to J.H. The juvenile court then terminated its prior suitable 

placement order and ordered J.H. returned to Father’s custody. 

On June 6, 2023, this Court requested the parties to file 

supplemental briefing on whether Father’s appeal is moot after 

the juvenile court returned J.H. to Father. Father failed to file a

supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION

I. Father’s Appeal Is Moot.

We begin by addressing whether Father’s appeal is 

justiciable. The juvenile court sustained counts against both 

Mother and Father. While Father challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence as to the allegations related to domestic violence, he 
4

makes no challenge to the jurisdictional findings of Mother’s 

substance abuse and Father’s failure to protect J.H. from Mother. 

As our Supreme Court recently explained, an appeal 

becomes moot when there is no effective relief we can provide the 

appellant. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276–278.) An appeal 

from a jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 300 is not justiciable where “no effective relief could be 

granted . . . , as jurisdiction would be established regardless of the 

appellate court’s conclusions with respect to any such [challenged] 

jurisdictional grounds.” (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 

308, 329; In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490.) Father 

does not challenge the jurisdictional finding that he failed to 

protect J.H. from Mother’s substance abuse. (In re Ashley B.

(2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979 [“[a]s long as there is one 

unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another 

might be inappropriate”].) 

However, “a case is not moot where a jurisdictional finding 

affects parental custody rights [citation], curtails a parent’s 

contact with his or her child [citation], or ‘has resulted in 

[dispositional] orders which continue to adversely affect’ a 

parent.” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 277–278.) On the 

other hand, where the parent fails to identify any “specific legal or 

practical consequence from [the challenged] finding, either within 

or outside the dependency proceedings,” the appellate court may 

decide that no effective relief can be granted and dismiss the 

appeal as moot. (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493; 

accord, In re D.P., at p. 283.)

Here, Father argues that we should address the 

jurisdictional domestic violence findings because they were the 

basis for the dispositional order removing J.H. from his custody. 
5

We decline to reach the merits of Father’s jurisdictional 

challenge because we can provide him no effective relief. While 

this appeal was pending, the trial court returned J.H. to Father’s 

care, which mooted the underlying dispositional order. This court 

then requested supplemental briefing to address whether the 

entire appeal was moot. Father did not file a supplemental brief.

As Father regained custody of J.H. on April 6, 2023, we cannot 

afford him any relief. His appeal is therefore moot. 

DISPOSITION

Father’s appeal is dismissed as moot.

VIRAMONTES, J.

We concur:

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WILEY, J.