Court Opinion

ID: 9390564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 19:03:09.354305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.273726
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/27/23 In re C.C. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.C., et al., Persons Coming                                 B315443 c/w B320655
Under Juvenile Court Law.
_______________________________                                   (Los Angeles County Super.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                 Ct. No. 21CCJP02156A-B)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

J.R.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Steff Padilla, Commissioner Presiding. Dismissed.
      Zaragoza Law Office and Gina Zaragoza for Defendant and
Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel and Brian Mahler, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                       ___________________________
       Father appeals the juvenile court’s order finding
jurisdiction over his two young children and dispositional orders.
Specifically, father challenges the (1) jurisdictional findings that
his substance abuse placed the children at substantial risk of
suffering serious physical harm, (2) dispositional order removing
the children from his physical custody, and (3) six-month review
findings that returning the children to parental custody would be
detrimental to the children’s well-being. While this appeal was
pending, the children were placed in father’s custody.
       We conclude that father’s jurisdictional challenge is
nonjusticiable: jurisdiction was also based on mother’s drug use.
Father’s appeal is moot as to the latter two challenges because
the children are now in his custody. We therefore dismiss
father’s appeal.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       At the inception of this dependency case, the children lived
with their two half siblings, mother, and her boyfriend. Mother
had prevented father from accessing the children, and father was
seeking visitation orders through the family court. The family
came to the attention of the Los Angeles Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) when a half sibling tested positive
for methamphetamine at birth. We do not further discuss the
half siblings or the boyfriend as they are not relevant to our
analysis.
1.     Jurisdiction and Disposition
       On May 7, 2021, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions
Code section 300 petition on behalf of the children.1 The petition
alleged in separate counts that mother’s abuse of

1     All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code, unless indicated otherwise.

                                 2
methamphetamine and amphetamine, and father’s abuse of
marijuana placed the children at risk of harm. Five days later,
the court detained the children from the parents.
       On June 24, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the
dependency petition in its entirety, and assumed dependency
jurisdiction over the children pursuant to section 300, subdivision
(b)(1). On August 4, 2021, the juvenile court held the disposition
hearing, ordered the children removed from parental custody,
and granted the parents family reunification services.
       A month later, father filed a notice of appeal challenging
the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order.
2.     Six Month Review Hearing
       On April 21, 2022, the juvenile court held a six-month
review hearing. The juvenile court found that continued
jurisdiction was necessary, returning the children to parental
custody would be detrimental to the children’s well-being, and
there was a substantial probability of returning the children to
parental custody if family reunification services were continued
for another six months. The court ordered reunification services
to continue for another six months.
       Father subsequently filed a notice of appeal challenging the
findings and orders made at the six-month review hearing.
3.     The Children Were Placed in Father’s Custody
       While both appeals were pending, on December 7, 2022, the
juvenile court held a 12-month review hearing. The court found
that continued jurisdiction was necessary, father had made
substantial progress with his case plan, and returning the
children to father’s custody would not be detrimental to the
children’s well-being. The court terminated its suitable

                                3
placement orders, ordered the children placed with father, and
ordered DCFS to provide family maintenance services to father.
                             DISCUSSION
1.     Father’s Appeal of the Jurisdictional Finding
       Against Him is Not 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 his substance abuse, he
makes no challenge to the jurisdictional findings of substance
abuse against mother.
       An appeal from a jurisdiction finding under 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 [“An
important requirement for justiciability is the availability of
‘effective’ relief—that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a
practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal
status.”].) “ ‘[A] jurisdictional finding good against one parent is
good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if
the actions of either parent bring [the minor] within one of the
statutory definitions of a dependent. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘For
this reason, an appellate court may decline to address the
evidentiary support for any remaining jurisdictional findings.’ ”
(In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308.)
       That said, appellate courts may exercise their discretion
and reach the merits of a challenge to a jurisdictional finding, for
example, where the parent would suffer prejudice in subsequent
proceedings or where the finding is based on particularly

                                  4
“pernicious or stigmatizing conduct.” (In re D.P. (2023) 14
Cal.5th 266, 285–286, 282 (D.P.) [discussing exercise of discretion
when appeal moot]; In re Madison S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p.
329 [stating same for when appeal not justiciable].) “Though
stigma alone will not sustain an appeal, a court may consider the
nature of the allegations against the parent when deciding
whether discretionary review is proper. The more egregious the
findings against the parent, the greater the parent’s interest in
challenging such findings.” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 286.)
Where an appeal is not justiciable “because one parent appealed
and not the other, but the findings against the parent who has
appealed are based on more serious conduct, it may serve the
interest of justice to review the parent’s appeal.” (Ibid.)
       It is also true that where a jurisdictional finding results in
dispositional orders that continue to adversely affect a parent,
the appellate court shall review the jurisdictional finding. (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 277–278 [“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 Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544,
1548; see In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917 [court may
exercise discretion to review merits of jurisdictional findings
where they are the basis for dispositional orders challenged on
appeal].)
       Here, regardless of whether we grant father relief, the
juvenile court would have jurisdiction over the children based on
the sustained jurisdictional findings as to mother. Father argues
we should nonetheless address his jurisdiction arguments for two
reasons: he is also appealing dispositional orders and the

                                 5
jurisdictional appeal would determine whether he is an offending
parent. Pointing out that he had previously been in a custody
battle with mother, father asserts “being offending or non-
offending may have far-reaching implications with respect to
possible future dependency proceedings, as well as possible
future family law proceedings.”
       We decline to reach the merits of father’s jurisdictional
challenge. First, as will be explained below, father’s appeal of the
dispositional orders is moot. Therefore, the appeal of
dispositional orders is not a basis for addressing jurisdiction.
       Second, we are not convinced our resolution of father’s
claim would have “a single specific legal or practical
consequence. . . , either within or outside the dependency
proceedings.” (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493.)
Despite father’s conclusory assertion that his offending status
may have far reaching implications, father has not articulated
specific consequences or prejudice he would suffer as an offending
parent. The nature of the allegations against father, i.e., that his
marijuana abuse rendered father incapable of providing the
children regular care and supervision, is far less egregious than
the findings about mother’s methamphetamine abuse while
pregnant and taking care of the children. (See D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 286.) Father’s speculation about prejudice and
stigma is not enough to compel review.2
       We dismiss father’s appeal of the jurisdictional findings as
not justiciable.

2      Father, in apparent anticipation that DCFS would make a
non-justiciability argument, addressed the point in his opening
brief and argued that his jurisdictional claim was justiciable.
DCFS did not mention justiciability in its respondent’s brief.

                                 6
2.    Father’s Appeal of the Dispositional Order Removing
      the Children From His Custody and of the Six-Month
      Review Findings Are Moot
      DCFS argues that the juvenile court’s placement of the
children in father’s custody mooted father’s appeal of “(1) the
orders made at the disposition hearing that removed the children
from his physical custody and (2) the findings and orders made at
the six-month review hearing that did not return the children to
parental custody.” Father does not address DCFS’s mootness
argument in his reply brief.
      “ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable
controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions
have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in
such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will
therefore be dismissed.’ ” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th
402, 404.) “[T]he 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 re N.S.
(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60.)
      Through his appeal of the initial disposition removing the
children from his custody and the six-month hearing’s disposition
refusing to place the children with him, father sought return of
the children to his custody. As father regained custody of the
children on December 7, 2022, we cannot afford him any relief.
The remainder of his appeal is moot.

                                   7
                      DISPOSITION
    The appeal is dismissed.

                              RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                  BAKER, J.

                  MOOR, J.

                         8