Court Opinion

ID: 9894205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 20:04:06.472184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:13.061467
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/30/23 In re Daisy B. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DAISY B. et al., Persons  B327065
 Coming Under the Juvenile Court
 Law.                            (Los Angeles County
                                 Super. Ct.
                                 No. 22CCJP04379A-B)
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 EDEN B.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Dismissed as moot.
      Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and
Vincent W. Davis for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County
Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
      The juvenile court on February 1, 2023 sustained an
amended petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), and
declared Daisy B. and Daniel B. dependent children of the court
based on allegations that Eden B., the children’s father, and
Sandra P., the children’s mother, had a history of engaging in
violent altercations in the presence of the children (during which
Eden was the aggressor) and that Eden had a history of mental
and emotional problems including homicidal ideation. The court
removed the children from Eden’s custody and placed them in the
home of their mother under the Department’s supervision. Eden
appealed the February 1 findings and orders. Sandra did not.
      On July 28, 2023, while Eden’s appeal was pending, the
juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and entered custody
orders. Eden did not appeal the July 28 orders. We dismiss
Eden’s appeal as moot.
                             DISCUSSION
       “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. 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 effective relief. 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 re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 [cleaned
up].)

                                   2
       Eden in his opening appellate brief contends insufficient
evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and
removal orders. He also asserts the court, among other
alternatives, should have terminated its jurisdiction with a
family law order.
       After Eden filed his brief, the juvenile court on July 28,
2023 terminated jurisdiction and entered custody orders. Eden
did not appeal or otherwise challenge the July 28 orders. On
October 3, 2023 we requested the parties address in
supplemental briefing whether the juvenile court’s orders
terminating jurisdiction mooted Eden’s appeal and whether, even
if moot, this court should exercise its jurisdiction to reach the
merits of his appeal. The Department responded, arguing the
appeal was moot. Eden did not file a supplemental brief.
       We agree the appeal is moot. Eden does not contend there
is any ongoing harm from the juvenile court’s February 1, 2023
jurisdiction findings and disposition orders and does not dispute
his appeal is moot. Nor has he identified any factors that would
justify exercising our discretion to decide an otherwise moot
appeal.
                          DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed as moot.

                                         PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

                 SEGAL, J.               MARTINEZ, J.

                                3