Court Opinion

ID: 9909566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 18:02:33.410314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:58.871591
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/13/23 In re A.W. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.W., a Person Coming                                  B322236
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Los Angeles County Super.
                                                              Ct. No. 22CCJP01276)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 ADEYEMIE W.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Dismissed as moot.
      Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                _____________________________

       On July 12, 2022 the juvenile court sustained a petition
filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a),1 and declared
nine-year-old A.W. a dependent child of the court. On appeal,
Adeyemie W., A.W.’s father (Father), contends there was
insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the
violent conduct of Father and his girlfriend toward A.W.’s
mother, Tanisha N. (Mother), placed A.W. at substantial risk of
harm.
       While Father’s appeal was pending, the juvenile court
terminated jurisdiction over A.W. and granted Mother sole legal
and physical custody. Father did not appeal from the court’s
order terminating jurisdiction or the final custody order. Because
we cannot grant effective relief to Father, we dismiss his appeal
as moot.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      On April 5, 2022 the Department filed a petition under
section 300, subdivision (a), and former subdivision (b)(1),2

1    Further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
2     The Legislature amended section 300, effective January 1,
2023, in part by revising subdivision (b)(1) to specify in separate
subparagraphs ways in which a child may come within the

                                 2
asserting identical allegations under both subdivisions that
Father and Mother had a history of engaging in violent
altercations in front of A.W. In addition, the petition alleged
that, during a March 2022 visitation exchange,3 Father’s
girlfriend assaulted Mother while Father encouraged his
girlfriend’s actions, and Father pushed Mother. The incident
occurred in A.W.’s presence. The petition alleged Father’s
behavior endangered A.W.’s physical health and safety, placing
her at risk of serious physical harm. On April 19, 2022 the court
detained A.W. from Father and released her to Mother.
       At the July 12, 2022 jurisdiction and disposition hearing,
the juvenile court sustained the allegation pursuant to
section 300, subdivision (a), and dismissed the allegation made
under former subdivision (b)(1). Proceeding to disposition, the
court declared A.W. a dependent of the court under section 300
and ordered that Mother would retain physical custody under the
Department’s supervision with monitored visitation for Father.
Father timely appealed.
       On January 9, 2023, prior to Father filing his opening brief,
the juvenile court found the conditions justifying the initial
assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed. The court
terminated jurisdiction, staying its order pending receipt of a
juvenile custody order. On January 17 the court terminated

jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to the failure or inability of
the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or care for
the child.
3     Pursuant to a January 2022 stipulated order entered by the
family court, Mother had sole legal custody of A.W. The order
established A.W.’s primary residence was with Mother; Father
had overnight visitation on alternating weekends and holidays.

                                  3
jurisdiction over A.W. and entered a final custody order granting
sole legal and physical custody of A.W. to Mother and ordering
monitored visitation for Father.4 Father did not appeal the
termination order or final custody order.

                          DISCUSSION

       Father’s appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdiction finding. He does not
challenge the disposition order based on those findings. As
discussed, while the appeal was pending, the juvenile court
terminated jurisdiction over A.W. and granted Mother sole legal
and physical custody with monitored visitation for Father.
Father has not appealed the termination and custody orders. On
October 20, 2023 we requested the parties address in
supplemental briefing whether the court’s orders mooted Father’s
appeal. The Department argued in its supplemental brief that
the appeal should be dismissed. Father’s attorney filed a letter
brief stating only that Father “will be submitting on the briefs
previously filed.” Father’s appellate briefs do not address
mootness.
       “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.”’” (In re D.P. (2023)
14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) “A case becomes moot when events

4      On our own motion we take judicial notice of the January 9,
2023 minute order and the January 17, 2023 minute order and
final custody order. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)

                                 4
‘“render[] it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in
favor of plaintiff, to grant [the plaintiff] any effect[ive] relief.”’
[Citation.] 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.” (Ibid.) In other
words, “relief is effective when it ‘can have a practical, tangible
impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status.’ [Citation.] It
follows that, to show a need for effective relief, the plaintiff must
first demonstrate that he or she has suffered from a change in
legal status.” (Id. at p. 277.)
       Father has not identified any ongoing harm we can rectify
by reversal of the jurisdiction finding. Even assuming the change
in Father’s visitation from unmonitored to monitored constituted
a change in legal status, we cannot provide any relief that will
have a practical, tangible impact on that status because Father
failed to appeal the termination and custody orders. As we
explained in In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 159,
“termination of dependency jurisdiction does not necessarily moot
an appeal from a jurisdiction finding that directly results in an
adverse juvenile custody order. But in most cases, including the
one at bar, for this court to be able to provide effective relief, the
parent must appeal not only from the jurisdiction finding and
disposition order but also from the orders terminating
jurisdiction and modifying the parent’s prior custody status.
Without the second appeal, we cannot correct the continuing
adverse consequences of the allegedly erroneous jurisdiction
finding.” (Accord, In re Gael C. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 220, 225.)
By not appealing from the final custody order, Father “forfeited
any challenge to those rulings [in the order], including to the

                                  5
juvenile court’s jurisdiction to issue them.” (In re Rashad D., at
p. 167; see In re Gael C., at p. 225.)
      Finally, while a reviewing court has discretion to reach the
merits of a moot case in certain circumstances, Father has not
asked us to exercise that discretion or identified any factors
warranting our exercise of discretion. (See In re D.P., supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 282; In re Gael C., supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 225-226.)

                         DISPOSITION

      The appeal is dismissed as moot.

                                          FEUER, J.

We concur:

             SEGAL, Acting P. J.

             MARTINEZ, J.

                                   6