Court Opinion

ID: 9840284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 19:05:39.649221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:02.673490
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/15/23 In re O.L. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

In re O.L., Jr. et al., Persons Coming                          B317745, B319864,
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                   B323402
___________________________________
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          Super. Ct. No.
AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            20CCJP02055A-B)

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

        v.

M.R.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Debra Archuleta, Judge. Dismissed.
      Sean Angele Burleigh, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for 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 Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
      Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Respondent O.L.

                               2
      M.R. (Mother) and O.L. (Father) are the parents of two
children: a son O.L., Jr. (O.L.), and a daughter A.R. (collectively,
Minors).1 The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction
over Minors, finding they were at risk of emotional harm as a
result of their parents’ ongoing custody dispute, and removed
Minors from Father’s care. Mother at first urged the court to
award her sole legal and physical custody and terminate
jurisdiction (a so-called “exit order”), but the court declined and
ordered the parents to share custody during dependency
proceedings that would ensue. Mother and Father then jointly
asked the court to issue an exit order awarding the parents joint
custody of the minors and the juvenile court agreed. In this
consolidated appeal, we consider whether Mother can properly
challenge the initial custody and jurisdiction orders the juvenile
court made before agreeing to terminate jurisdiction. We also
decide whether Mother is aggrieved by the exit order the court
ultimately entered at her request (jointly with Father).

                        I. BACKGROUND
       A.   The Dependency Petition, Jurisdiction, and
            Disposition
       Mother and Father separated in June 2015. Four years
later, pursuant to a family law order, Mother and Father were
awarded joint legal and physical custody of their children.
Although Minors resided primarily with Mother, the family
court’s order provided for frequent overnight visits with Father.

1
      At the time the dependency petition was filed, O.L. was five
years old and his sister A.R. was four years old.

                                  3
       In April 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition
alleging Minors were at substantial risk of suffering emotional
harm due to their parents’ continued disputes over child custody.
The petition specifically alleged Father made repeated
accusations that Minors were being abused and neglected while
in Mother’s home, which led to the children being subjected to
numerous interviews with social workers, law enforcement
officers, and medical professionals and caused Minors to suffer
severe anxiety and depression.
       At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile
court sustained the dependency petition as pled. The court
ordered Minors removed from Father’s care and released into
Mother’s home under the Department’s supervision; Father was
granted monitored visitation.2

      B.     The Six-Month Review Hearing
      In advance of the initial review hearing, the Department
informed the juvenile court that both parents were in compliance
with their respective case plans. Mother had voluntarily enrolled
in a parenting class and Father was consistent in his visitation
with Minors. Neither child reported any abuse or physical
discipline, social workers had not observed any signs of abuse,
and neither Minors’ teachers nor their service providers
expressed any safety concerns about the children. Nonetheless,
the Department reported that more than a dozen anonymous,

2
      In an unpublished decision, we upheld the juvenile court’s
jurisdiction findings and removal order. (In the Matter of O.L.
(Jun. 24, 2021, B307466) [nonpub. opn.].)

                                4
unsubstantiated allegations of abuse or neglect had been leveled
against Mother and/or her live-in partner H.H. (Stepfather) since
the adjudication and disposition hearing.
      Although Minors were doing well in therapy, their
therapist believed it was difficult for them to process their
trauma due to the ongoing abuse referrals and resulting
investigations.3 Because Minors were bonded to Mother and “safe
and stable” in her home, and because the risk of emotional harm
was “high” due to Father’s inability to understand why Minors
had been removed from his care, the Department recommended
the juvenile court terminate jurisdiction with an order giving
Mother sole legal and physical custody of Minors and limiting
Father to monitored visitation.
      At the six-month review hearing, held in July 2021, the
juvenile court maintained dependency jurisdiction over Minors.
The court ordered the Department to continue monitoring
Father’s visits but gave it the discretion to “liberalize to
unmonitored.” Mother objected to the court’s decision to
maintain jurisdiction over Minors.

      C.    The 12-Month Review Hearing
      In the period between the six-month and 12-month review
hearings, the Department reported both parents were in
compliance with their court-ordered case plans and Minors
appeared bonded with each of their parents. Minors described
Mother’s home as loving and safe and characterized their

3
     Father’s therapist opined that she did not believe Father
was making the anonymous referrals; she thought it might be his
mother.

                               5
relationship with Mother and Stepfather as a family. Following
the liberalization of Father’s visitation from monitored to
unmonitored, Minors reported enjoying their time with Father
and the Department did not report any safety or other concerns
when it made an unannounced visit to Father’s home.
       Because Father continued to deny that he had been
emotionally abusive to his children prior to the commencement of
dependency proceedings, the Department recommended the
juvenile court terminate jurisdiction with an order granting
Mother sole legal and physical custody of Minors with
unmonitored visits for Father, including overnight visits. The
juvenile court held the 12-month review hearing in December
2021 and—over objections by Mother and the Department—
rescinded its home-of-the-mother custody order and replaced it
with a home-of-parents order which it characterized as
“temporary.” The court continued the remainder of the review
hearing to a later date and Mother noticed an appeal from the
court’s home-of-parents custody order (one of three consolidated
appeals currently before us).4
       At the resumed hearing, held in February 2022, the
Department once again urged the juvenile court to terminate
jurisdiction. Regarding custody, the Department recommended
the court give sole legal custody of Minors to Mother but order
joint physical custody. Mother and Father agreed with the
Department’s recommendation for joint physical custody and
urged the court to terminate jurisdiction. Minors’ counsel,
however, argued for continued jurisdiction, contending the

4
     Mother did not seek supersedeas relief in this court in
connection with any of the appeals she noticed.

                                6
parents’ persistent inability to co-parent effectively was
endangering the children’s emotional well-being.
     The juvenile court declined to terminate jurisdiction and
maintained the home-of-parents order in “full force and effect.”
Mother noticed an appeal from the juvenile court’s ruling (the
second appeal before us).

       D.    The 18-Month Review Hearing
       In advance of the 18-month review hearing, the
Department reported Mother and Father, through mediation, had
reached an agreement on shared physical custody, including a
holiday schedule. The Department also related that in the
interval since the 12-month review hearing it received a number
of referrals regarding abuse of Minors by Mother and/or
Stepfather, all of which proved to be false. Minors’ therapist
believed they continued to display “symptoms and behaviors of
concern” but had made “positive progress” toward their treatment
goals. The Department recommended jurisdiction be terminated
with the parents sharing legal and physical custody.
       The juvenile court held the 18-month review hearing in
July 2022. All parties were in favor of the parents sharing legal
and physical custody. Mother, Father, and the Department also
urged the court to terminate jurisdiction. Mother’s attorney
explained, “Today, the parents are in agreement to share joint
legal and physical custody. [¶] . . . [¶] These parents have
figured out how to [co-parent] together and effectively.”
       In view of parents’ agreement on custody and visitation and
the progress Minors were making in therapy, the juvenile court
found continued jurisdiction was unnecessary. Several days
later, the court signed a “Custody Order—Juvenile—Final

                                7
Judgment,” which incorporated the parents’ mediation agreement
on visitation, terminated dependency jurisdiction, and released
Minors to their parents.
      Mother noticed an appeal from the juvenile court’s order
terminating jurisdiction. That is the third of the three appeals
that have been consolidated and are currently before us for
resolution.

                         II. DISCUSSION
      Dismissal of this consolidated appeal is required. As to the
December 2021 home-of-parents order and the February 2022
order maintaining dependency jurisdiction over Minors, we
cannot grant Mother any effective relief at this point. These
orders have been mooted by the court’s later July 2022 exit order.
And as to Mother’s appeal from that order, she has no standing to
appeal because she is not aggrieved; Mother expressly and
repeatedly urged the court to issue the order it did.

      A.     Mother’s Appeals of the Home-of-Parents Order and
             the Order Continuing Jurisdiction at the 12-Month
             Review Hearing Were Mooted by Subsequent Events
       “A case becomes moot when events ‘“render[ ] it impossible
for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to
grant him any effect[ive] relief.”’ [Citation.]” (In re D.P. (2023)
14 Cal.5th 266, 276; accord, In re Rashad D. (2021) 63
Cal.App.5th 156, 163 [“‘the critical factor in considering whether
a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can
provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error’”].) “In th[e
dependency] context, relief is effective when it ‘can have a
practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status.’

                                   8
[Citation.] It follows that, to show a need for effective relief, the
plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she has suffered a
change in legal status.” (D.P., supra, at 277; see also id. at 276
[“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”].) In other words, a parent must
“demonstrate[ ] a specific legal or practical consequence that
would be avoided upon reversal” in order for the dependency
appeal to not be moot and warrant merits review. (Id. at 283.)
       “Juvenile dependency appeals raise unique mootness
concerns because the parties have multiple opportunities to
appeal orders even as the proceedings in the juvenile court
proceed.” (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 59; see also D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at 284 [“the speed with which dependency cases
are resolved will often render appeals moot”].) “A reviewing court
must ‘“decide on a case-by-case basis whether subsequent events
in a juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether
[its] decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent
proceeding.”’ [Citation.]” (D.P., supra, at 276.) Even where a
dependency appeal is moot, however, “courts may exercise their
‘inherent discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute.” (Id. at
282; see also id. at 285-286 [enumerating considerations to guide
decisions on whether to exercise discretion to reach the merits].)
       Mother’s challenges to the December 2021 home-of-parents
order and the February 2022 order continuing jurisdiction were
rendered moot by the juvenile court’s subsequent exit order in
July 2022 terminating jurisdiction and returning Minors to the
custody and care of both parents. Mother did not suffer any
adverse change in legal status from either the December 2021 or

                                 9
February 2022 order. Throughout the dependency proceedings,
Mother never lost physical custody of her children. Because we
cannot grant Mother any effective relief, her appeals of the
December 2021 and February 2022 orders are moot. We have
also considered the factors bearing on discretionary review of
moot questions as identified in D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th 266, and
we believe there is no good reason to exercise our discretion to
decide the moot issues.

      B.      Mother Is Not Aggrieved by the Termination of
              Jurisdiction
        “[O]nly a person aggrieved by a decision may appeal.” (In
re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231, 236; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 902
[“Any party aggrieved may appeal in the cases prescribed in this
title”].) This rule applies with “full force to appeals from
dependency proceedings.” (K.C. supra, at 236; accord, In re D.S.
(2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 671, 673-674 [father’s “ability to appeal
does not confer standing to assert issues when he is not aggrieved
by the order from which the appeal is taken”]; In re Carissa G.
(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 734 [to have standing to appeal a
dependency court order, a parent must “establish he or she is a
‘party aggrieved’ to obtain a review of a ruling on its merits”].)
        “To be aggrieved or affected, a parent must have a legally
cognizable interest that is affected injuriously by the juvenile
court’s decision.” (D.S., supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at 674; accord,
K.C., supra, 52 Cal.4th at 236; Carissa G., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th
at 734.) “Standing to challenge an adverse ruling is not
established merely because a parent takes a position on an issue
that affects the minor [citation]; nor can a parent raise the
minor’s best interest as a basis for standing [citation]. Without a

                                10
showing that a parent’s personal rights are affected by a ruling,
the parent does not establish standing.” (D.S., supra, at 674.)
       Mother was not aggrieved by the juvenile court’s exit order.
The exit order terminated jurisdiction (something Mother had
long urged the court to do) and it did so on terms that restored
the status quo as it existed at the time the dependency
proceedings were commenced, i.e., joint legal and physical
custody (something Mother had also urged). Mother’s rights, in
other words, were not adversely affected by the exit order.
Whatever its merit, her argument that the restoration of joint
custody was not in Minors’ best interests is beside the point.
(D.S., supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at 674; accord, Carissa G., supra,
76 Cal.App.4th at 736.)

                         DISPOSITION
      The consolidated appeals are dismissed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                            BAKER, J.
We concur:

      RUBIN, P. J.

      KIM, J.

                                11