Court Opinion

ID: 9953761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 20:02:54.929237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:48.451104
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/22/24 In re E.B. CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 In re E.B.,                                                    B330316

 a Person Coming Under the                                      (Los Angeles County
 Juvenile Court Law.                                             Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP00854)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 ALEXIS S.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Judge Pro Tempore.
Dismissed.
      Sara R. Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                   __________________________

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
     As this appeal is determined by a controlling decision of our
Supreme Court, In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, we decide it by
memorandum disposition. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
     Alexis S. (Mother) appeals from the summary denial of her
petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388
to modify certain dispositional orders. On April 21, 2023, the
juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over Mother’s daughter E.B.
based on domestic violence between Mother and Brandon B.
(Father), and drug use by Mother and Father. That same day,
the court made dispositional orders that included removal of E.B.
from both parents, Mother having supervised visitation two times
a week for three hours per visit, and Mother’s participation in a
drug treatment program. Mother filed a section 388 petition
approximately six weeks later, on June 1, 2023, arguing changed
circumstances supported returning E.B. to parental custody or
liberalized visitation, and removing the requirement that Mother
attend a drug treatment program. The court summarily denied
Mother’s section 388 petition on June 21, 2023.

      1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to
the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                 2
       The juvenile court continued to retain jurisdiction over
E.B., and during the pendency of this appeal the juvenile court
returned E.B. to Mother and rescinded the order for drug
treatment. Mother concedes these subsequent court orders have
rendered her appeal moot. Because the appeal is moot, DCFS
requests we dismiss it. Mother asks that we exercise our
discretion to review her appeal on the merits, arguing that
dismissal would insulate the purportedly erroneous ruling from
review, her appeal involves issues of continuing public interest
that are likely to recur, and the mootness resulted from her
prompt compliance with her case plan.
       The moot order here does not involve a jurisdictional
finding. Accordingly, the factors that often may warrant
discretionary review are inapplicable, such as a jurisdictional
finding involving particularly stigmatizing conduct or impacting
future dependency proceedings. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at
pp. 285-286.) The instant appeal does not present circumstances
warranting discretionary review of a moot case, such as an issue
of broad public interest that is likely to recur, the likelihood of a
recurrence of the controversy between the parties, or a material
question that remains for the court’s determination. (Id. at
p. 282.) While we agree that the mootness occurred in part
because of Mother’s compliance with her case plan, that alone
does not require we exercise discretion to review the merits of
Mother’s appeal. (Id. at p. 286 [“no single factor is necessarily
dispositive of whether a court should exercise discretionary
review of a moot appeal”].)
       On balance, after considering the pertinent factors and the
totality of the evidence in the record, we conclude that
discretionary review of Mother’s moot appeal is not warranted.

                                  3
                          DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                        WEINGART, J.

We concur:

             CHANEY, J.

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.

                                4