Court Opinion

ID: 9898654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 21:05:18.825291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:38.346448
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/14/23 In re K.V. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re K.V., a Person Coming                                    B324749
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                               Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Super. Ct. No.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                         22CCJP02091A
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

O.V.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay, Judge. Dismissed.
      Allen Korenstein, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    _________________________
       Father appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
findings and orders declaring his then-16-year-old daughter K.V.
a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300, subdivision (b)(1).1 While this appeal was pending,
the juvenile court returned K.V. to parents’ custody and
terminated its jurisdiction over K.V. The Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (Department)
moved to dismiss father’s appeal as moot. As there is no relief
we can provide father, and having concluded discretionary review
is not warranted, we dismiss his appeal as moot.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       The family consists of father, mother, and their children
K.V. (born March 2006) and W.V. (born October 2010).2
1.     The petition and investigation
       The Department became involved with the family when
K.V.’s friend called the child protection hotline on May 24, 2022,
after K.V. had come to her house and was afraid to return home.
K.V. had told the friend: mother had kicked her legs and
stomach during an argument earlier that month, giving her
bruises on her legs; father and mother had hit her legs and chest
in December 2021 and January 2022; a year earlier, mother had
slammed K.V. into a table and hit her with one of the broken
table legs, leaving K.V. with a bloody mouth and bruised legs
and knees; mother had threatened to beat her to death; and

1       Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
2    Mother does not appeal, and W.V. is not a subject of this
appeal.

                                  2
parents had physically assaulted her younger brother W.V. with
a belt.
       The friend’s mother took K.V. to a police station. There,
K.V. told a social worker both parents beat her for discipline,
but mother disciplined her more than father did. K.V. showed
the social worker marks on the inside of her thigh that appeared
to be bruises, which K.V. said mother had caused less than
two weeks ago. K.V. said that, in summer 2021, she had left
the house without permission to get sandwiches for her brother
and herself. When her parents found out, she said they made
her lie on the floor on her back—mother began hitting and
kicking her and father hit her with a belt. K.V. also told the
social worker she had stopped going to school in December 2021
after three other students beat her up. The school called her
parents on May 25, 2022 to report her absences. K.V. said
father called her and said, “ ‘You know what’s going to happen’
when you get home.” K.V. took that to mean a “beating.”
       The social worker visited W.V. at his school. He said he
“got spanked” a long time ago with a belt. When asked about
the sandwich incident, he stated he did not see K.V. get spanked,
but when she came downstairs, she looked “so sad.”
       The social worker spoke with father on the phone, and the
investigating social worker interviewed him at the Department’s
office on May 25, 2022. He denied K.V.’s allegations of abuse.
He admitted parents had spanked the children, but “ ‘only . . .
on the legs and the ass.’ ” Father stated parents normally
disciplined the children by talking to them, taking away their
cell phones, and not taking them out to eat. He also admitted
that when the children were “a lot younger[,] years ago[,] he
might have spanked the children with a belt over clothing;

                                3
however, never to the extent of leaving marks or bruises on the
children.” Father said he last spanked K.V. eight months earlier
when he hit her twice with a belt. He felt so bad about it that he
apologized to her. Father stated he and mother “are not abusive
and would never cause harm to the children.”
      As to specific allegations, father said the incident K.V.
described about mother pushing her into a table never happened.
He said mother may have spanked K.V. with an open hand on
the thigh a couple of months ago when they found a boy hiding
in her bedroom in the middle of the night. They were upset and
called the police. They did not know how to react and “out of
anger mother might have spanked [K.V.].” Father said mother
did not cause any marks, bruises, or injuries. He did not know
how K.V. got bruises on her legs. No one said anything about
bruises when she went to swim practice.
      Father believed K.V. was avoiding coming home because
she did not “want to own up” to having skipped school and being
caught with a boy in her room—she did not know how to face him
or mother after she “betrayed their trust.” Parents had learned
she had not been attending classes since December. They were
upset and frustrated and told K.V. she would have to face the
consequences for her actions. K.V. then did not want to come
home. Father said parents did not threaten to “beat her” or
harm her. Father said he and mother had not had any contact
with K.V. since May 19. She left school and they could not
find her. Father filed a runaway/missing person’s report at
the police station.
      During a phone call with the social worker, mother also
denied abusing the children. Mother said she didn’t understand
why K.V. “would say such things except to cover up for her not

                                4
going to school.” She stated she didn’t remember what happened
last summer with the sandwich incident “because she tries not to
hold on to negativity.” Mother said she last hit K.V. about three
years ago when mother was drunk but apologized the next day.
       The Department took K.V. into custody and placed her in
foster care. K.V. told a forensic nurse that mother hit her with
anything available—but mostly used a belt—and kicked her.
She said father hit her with a belt and his hands and kicked her
with his boots. The nurse observed a “pattern mark” on K.V.’s
inner thigh that “was consistent with belt history.” The mark
was faded but had a “clear demarcation.” Later, the nurse told
the dependency investigator K.V. had said the mark had been
bigger and happened a week earlier. The nurse stated children
typically heal fast. She could not provide a possible date of when
K.V. may have been hit with a belt to have caused the mark.
       On May 31, 2022, the Department filed a section 300
petition alleging parents physically abused K.V. and that abuse
also placed W.V. at risk. At the June 1, 2022 detention hearing,
K.V.’s counsel joined with the Department in requesting K.V.
remain detained from parents. The court detained K.V. from her
parents and found visitation would be detrimental “at this point.”
The court asked for a “cooling off period” with no visits between
K.V. and her parents pending the adjudication hearing. W.V.
remained in parents’ custody. Less than two weeks later, on
June 11, 2022, K.V. ran away from her foster home. The court
issued a protective custody warrant for her on July 14, 2022.
       The Department’s jurisdiction/disposition report, filed
July 13, 2022, included the dependency investigator’s separate
interviews of the children and parents on June 15, 2022. K.V.
said mother had begun physically abusing her about six years

                                5
ago. K.V. stated there had been several incidents, but she could
not give the exact dates. K.V. again described the sandwich
incident in 2021, explaining parents had physically abused her
for leaving W.V. home alone—whom she was babysitting—to
go out to buy sandwiches for them. K.V. said father saw her
walking on the street, took her home, and physically disciplined
her by kicking while wearing his work boots and slapping her.
When mother returned home, she hit K.V. with the metal part
of a belt and kicked her while she was on the floor. K.V. said
she sustained bruises on her legs and was not allowed to leave
the house until the bruises healed. As for the bruises observed
on her thigh, K.V. said mother had hit her with a belt “a couple
of weeks ago.” K.V. had no concerns for W.V.’s safety, however.
As for father, K.V. said he would hit her whenever mother
physically abused her, but father did not physically discipline her
as often as mother did. She denied witnessing father physically
abuse W.V.
       Mother denied physically abusing the children. She
recalled physically disciplining K.V. once—when parents caught
the teenage boy hiding in K.V.’s room. She said they called the
boy’s mother, not the police. Mother said she was very upset
with K.V. and remembers spanking her “on the butt[,] over her
clothes with an open hand.” Mother denied using any objects to
discipline K.V. or having observed any marks or bruises on K.V.
after spanking her. Mother stated she alone disciplined K.V.
during that incident; father told K.V. how disappointed they
were in her behavior. Mother also denied physically abusing K.V.
during the sandwich incident. Mother denied father physically
abused K.V. and said he was more lenient with the children
than she was.

                                6
       Mother said K.V. had been having behavioral issues.
Mother went to K.V.’s school on May 19, 2022 after receiving a
call about her attendance. K.V. had attended only 84 of 165 days
of school. The school staff could not find K.V., and K.V. would
not answer mother’s calls or texts. Mother said she filed a
missing person’s report.
       Father said there was the one incident where mother
spanked K.V.—when they found the boy in her room—but denied
any other incident of physical abuse. He said mother spanked
K.V. on her buttocks over her clothes and denied that she had
used an object, like a belt or wire, to hit her. He again admitted
that he and mother may have spanked the children when they
were younger, but it was always over their clothes and never
left any marks or bruises. Father denied he or mother physically
disciplined K.V. during the sandwich incident. Father said
he confronted K.V. on the street and had spoken to her about
her behavior, as did mother, but they did not physically discipline
her.
       Neither parent knew where the marks on K.V.’s thigh came
from.
       W.V. denied any physical abuse by parents. He denied
having ever seen mother or father physically discipline K.V. or
having seen any marks or bruises on K.V. indicative of physical
abuse. He had seen mother and K.V. only argue about K.V.’s
grades and behavior in school and said father “would only talk to”
K.V. when she misbehaved. W.V. said mother would take away
their phones, tablets, and video games to discipline them. He
felt safe in the home and had no concerns about his safety.
       On August 25, 2022, K.V. went to the Department’s office
after having contacted the social worker. K.V. said she “was

                                7
ready to return home if possible.” The Department placed K.V.
with her paternal aunt. The court recalled the protective custody
warrant and ordered a forensic interview of K.V.
       K.V. completed the forensic interview on September 7,
2022. During the interview, K.V. admitted she had exaggerated
the details of the physical abuse by her parents. K.V. told the
interviewer everything that led to her running away started in
October 2021. She was being harassed by another female student
at school and started hiding in the bathroom instead of going to
class. When the school notified her parents about her excessive
absences, K.V. was afraid of getting in trouble and went to stay
at a friend’s house for about three days. She had told her friend
her mother sometimes got physical with her. K.V. admitted to
the interviewer the bruises on her leg were not from her parents
but from working out at the gym and swimming. K.V. said
she had felt pressure to lie from her friend—who was with her
at the police station—and had panicked.
       As for the sandwich incident, K.V. said mother had, for
the first time, hit her with a belt. Father told mother to stop.
K.V. told the interviewer father had not physically disciplined
her then and denied father had physically disciplined her
in the past. K.V. told the interviewer that everything else she
had said about that incident was a lie—she “over exaggerated
it so [she] wouldn’t have [to] go back home so they would take
[her] more serious [sic].” As for when parents found the boy in
her bedroom, K.V. said mother slapped her and pulled her hair.
When asked about father, K.V. told the interviewer, “He just
talks, never hits me. He never does anything to me.” K.V. told
the interviewer she wanted to return home to her parents.

                               8
2.     Adjudication
       The juvenile court held the continued adjudication hearing
on October 5 and 6, 2022. The court admitted the Department’s
reports and the forensic interview into evidence. The
Department’s counsel acknowledged K.V. “seem[ed] to have
walked back some of her statements” in her forensic interview
but continued “to disclose being hit by mother.” Counsel also
noted father had admitted giving spankings and had told the
Department he last hit K.V. eight months before his interview
and had apologized. He also said mother had hit the child before.
The Department asked the court to sustain the petition as
pleaded given K.V. “did not state that no physical abuse occurred,
and . . . mother and father both admitted to some level of
inappropriate discipline of [K.V.] when initially interviewed
by the Department.”
       K.V.’s counsel stated K.V. wanted the court to know she
would like the case to be dismissed and to return home to her
parents. Based on her statutory obligations, however, K.V.’s
counsel joined with the Department. Counsel told the court K.V.
wanted the court to know her parents did not cause the bruises
on her legs, she “overexaggerated” the abuse by her parents, and
her father did not hit her. Counsel noted K.V. acknowledged
mother had been physically violent with her in the past.
       Mother’s counsel argued K.V. had “made very clear in her
forensic interview that she was coached and pressured to make
false allegations to the police. She first told the police that she
had no marks on her body. She only later sa[id] bruising was
from her parents because she felt pressures from others that
were with her. [K.V.] confirm[ed] that the bruising was never
on account of any abuse from her parents.” Mother’s counsel

                                 9
noted mother had been “forthright about spanking [K.V.] with
an open hand about a year or two ago when she caught her
breaking house rules by sneaking a boy into the home.” Counsel
also noted W.V.’s statements corroborated the falsity of K.V.’s
initial allegations of abuse. Counsel asked the court to dismiss
the petition and also argued there was no current risk to K.V.,
noting K.V. wanted to go home.
       Father’s counsel also asked the court to dismiss the
petition. Counsel argued, “This is not a case of a child being
physically abused. This is a case of a teenager who was caught
with a boy in her room under her bed, skipping school daily and
generally misbehaving and thinking that she was older than
she is. [¶] [K.V.] got caught, and she didn’t like it. She spun
a fanciful tale of years of abuse that are not backed up by any
collaterals or any other evidence.” Counsel noted K.V. said her
friend told her to say her bruises were from her parents—when
they really were from the gym and swimming—so K.V. would not
have to return home. K.V. noted she felt pressure from the friend
to maintain the lie because she was not interviewed privately
at the police station. Counsel also noted other inconsistencies
in K.V.’s stories. For example, she told the forensic interviewer
her bruise was from being hit with a belt one week earlier but
told the police officer it was from being kicked two weeks earlier.
Counsel also noted K.V. originally claimed there had been several
instances of abuse in 2021 and 2022 when she had bruises, and
once a bloody mouth, yet the family had no prior referrals to the
Department. And, K.V. originally said father would hit her when
mother physically abused her, “yet here today [K.V.’s] attorney
has made it clear that [K.V.’s] father has not hit her.” Father’s
counsel also argued she found “it extremely difficult to believe”

                                10
K.V.’s 11-year-old brother “would have no indication that this
abuse was occurring and that he would not see any bruises or
any marks on his sister on a regular basis.”
       Father was willing to participate in conjoint counseling
with K.V. He “just want[ed] his family back together,” as K.V.
“had made clear” she also wanted.
       After hearing argument, the court sustained one count
of the petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), amended
to read:
             “[K.V.] and [W.V.’s] father . . . used
             inappropriate physical discipline on the child
             [K.V.] [¶] In 2021, the father struck the child
             with a belt multiple times. On prior occasions,
             the father struck the child’s legs and buttocks.
             The child refuses to return home due to the
             physical abuse by her father. [¶] Such physical
             abuse was excessive and caused the child
             unreasonable pain and suffering. The
             inappropriate physical discipline of the child
             [K.V.] by the father endangers the child’s
             physical health and safety and places the child
             at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and
             physical abuse.”
The court found K.V.’s statements were “inherently not reliable,
given her recantation of certain facts alleged.” The court
sustained the single count against father “based on the
corroboration given by father.” The court found there was no
corroboration, however, “of any inappropriate physical discipline
or abuse by mother, nor of any as to [W.V.].” The court thus
dismissed the counts as to W.V., the allegations against parents

                                11
as to any conduct toward W.V., and the allegations as to mother’s
failure to protect.
       The court declared K.V. a dependent of the juvenile court,
ordered her removed from parental custody and placed with
paternal aunt, ordered monitored visitation and family
reunification services for parents, ordered K.V. to participate in
counseling and each parent to participate in conjoint counseling
with K.V. when recommended by K.V.’s therapist, and ordered
each parent to participate in individual counseling. The court
set the case for a six-month review hearing on April 6, 2023.
Father’s counsel filed a notice of appeal on father’s behalf on
October 10, 2022.
3.     Post-appeal developments
       On April 6, 2023, the juvenile court found “the extent
of progress made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes
necessitating placement” by both mother and father had “been
substantial.” The court terminated the suitable placement order
and ordered K.V. returned to parents’ custody. Less than three
months later, on June 28, 2023, the court found the conditions
that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction under section
300 no longer existed and were “not likely to exist if supervision
[were] withdrawn and the Court terminate[d] [its] jurisdiction.”
The court terminated its jurisdiction and noted a Juvenile
Custody Order was unnecessary as K.V. already had been
released to parents.
       Father filed his opening brief on June 13, 2023. He
argued the evidence did not support the jurisdictional finding of
inappropriate physical discipline, citing parents’ right reasonably
to discipline their children, and arguing there was no evidence
K.V. ever suffered serious physical harm at father’s hands—

                                12
there was no evidence father caused any bruising, father showed
remorse for his actions, and father’s concern for K.V.’s behavior
was a reason to discipline her. (Citing Gonzalez v. Santa Clara
County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 91–92
[parental disciplinary privilege requires “(1) a genuine
disciplinary motive; (2) a reasonable occasion for discipline;
and (3) a disciplinary measure reasonable in kind and degree”;
and finding use of wooden spoon to administer a spanking did
not “necessarily exceed[ ] the bounds of reasonable parental
discipline”] and In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634, 637
[reversing juvenile court’s finding mother’s spanking of children
on buttocks with hand or sandal was categorically unreasonable
discipline and remanding for court to apply three-part test].)
       With its respondent’s brief, the Department filed a motion
to dismiss father’s appeal as moot and asked us to take judicial
notice of the court’s April 6 and June 28, 2023 minute orders.
The Department alternatively argued substantial evidence
supported finding the “amount of punishment” father gave K.V.
was “unreasonable and excessive under the circumstances,”
and until father “ameliorated the risk of harm to [K.V.],” the
juvenile court’s findings were supported by the evidence.
       Father did not file an opposition to the Department’s
motion to dismiss or request for judicial notice. And, although
we granted father a 10-day extension to file his reply brief, he did
not file one.3 We now take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s

3     Father’s counsel sent a letter—filed October 9, 2023—
stating he had been ill and unable to file the letter by the
extended reply due date. Counsel noted father’s “children [had
been] returned to him . . . and jurisdiction is now terminated.”

                                13
April 6 and June 28, 2023 minute orders. (Evid. Code, §§ 452,
subd. (d), 459.)
                             DISCUSSION
1.    Father’s appeal is moot
      As our high court recently reiterated:
             “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.” ’ [Citation.] 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.] 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 plaintiff seeks.”
             (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.)
             [mootness rule applies in dependency context].)
      We must “ ‘ “decide on a case-by-case basis whether
subsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter make a case
moot and whether [our] decision would affect the outcome in
a subsequent proceeding.” ’ ” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 276.)

Father submitted the matter to the court based on his opening
brief.

                                14
“[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, quoted by D.P., at p. 276.) “[R]elief is
effective when it ‘can have a practical, tangible impact on the
parties’ conduct or legal status.’ ” (D.P., at p. 277, quoting In re
I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490.)4 Thus, “to show a need
for effective relief, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or
she has suffered from a change in legal status.” (D.P., at p. 277.)
       Father’s appeal is moot. K.V. no longer is a dependent of
the juvenile court, and she was returned to his and mother’s joint
custody without any changes to or restrictions on his custodial
rights. Indeed, the court entered no custodial order. We thus
can give father no effective relief.
2.    We decline to exercise our discretion to review
      the merits of father’s appeal
       “Even when a case is moot, courts may exercise their
‘inherent discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute.” (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) Generally, that discretion is
exercised “when ‘the case presents an issue of broad public
interest that is likely to recur,’ ‘when there may be a recurrence
of the controversy between the parties,’ or ‘when a material
question remains for the court’s determination.’ ” (Ibid.)
       Our high court has recognized several “features of
dependency proceedings may make appeals particularly prone
to mootness problems.” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 284–285.)

4    D.P. overruled In re I.A. in part on another ground. (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.)

                                 15
And, “[b]ecause dismissal of an appeal for mootness operates
as an affirmance of the underlying judgment or order [citation],
such dismissals may ‘ “ha[ve] the undesirable result of insulating
erroneous or arbitrary rulings from review.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 285.)
Thus, appellate courts may consider a variety of factors
in “opt[ing] to exercise their inherent discretion to decide
certain challenges to juvenile court jurisdictional findings,
notwithstanding mootness.” (Ibid.)
       For example, courts may consider whether challenged
jurisdictional findings could prejudice the parent, potentially
affect the current or future dependency proceedings, or have
other consequences for the parent beyond jurisdiction. (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285.) Our high court also noted “[t]he
exercise of discretionary review may . . . be informed by whether
the jurisdictional finding is based on particularly pernicious
or stigmatizing conduct. [Citations.] 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.” (Id. at pp. 285–286.) A court
“may also consider why the appeal became moot”—such as when
“the case becomes moot due to prompt compliance by parents
with their case plan”—as “[i]t would perversely incentivize
noncompliance” if appeals from jurisdictional findings were
available “only for parents who are less compliant or for whom
the court has issued additional orders.” (Id. at p. 286.)
       The court explained that while “no single factor is
necessarily dispositive of whether a court should exercise
discretionary review of a moot appeal,” a court ultimately

                                16
“should be guided by the overarching goals of the dependency
system” in deciding whether to exercise that discretion. (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 286.) As the court directed, a reviewing
court thus “must decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is
appropriate to exercise discretionary review to reach the merits
of a moot appeal.” (Id. at p. 287.) Having considered the above
principles and factors discussed in D.P., we decline to exercise
our discretion to reach the merits of father’s appeal.
       This case does not present an issue of broad public interest
and there is nothing to suggest the controversy will recur.
Moreover, father did not oppose the Department’s motion to
dismiss his appeal as moot, nor file a reply brief to articulate
any prejudice, stigma, or adverse consequences he is facing, or
will face, if the court’s ruling is left unreviewed. Indeed, father’s
counsel’s belatedly-filed letter states he would not be submitting
“any additional argument.” Father thus has not offered any
reason why we should consider the appeal now that K.V. has
been returned to his and mother’s custody and dependency
jurisdiction has been terminated. We find none.
       The court here dismissed the petition’s allegations under
section 300, subdivision (a)—that father had intentionally
caused, or may intentionally cause, K.V. serious physical harm.
The sustained count accused father of inappropriately
disciplining K.V. by striking her with a belt in 2021 and striking
K.V.’s legs and buttocks on other occasions, but father had
admitted that conduct. The court also struck the allegation
that father had physically abused K.V., finding instead that
his inappropriate physical discipline of her “endanger[ed]
[K.V.’s] physical health and safety and place[d] the child at
risk of serious physical harm, damage, and physical abuse.”

                                 17
Accordingly, we do not find the jurisdictional findings here were
based “on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct” that
would weigh heavily in favor of our review. (D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th at pp. 285–286.) And, although father eliminated the
need for continued jurisdiction after the first review hearing—a
factor weighing in favor of discretionary review—“no single factor
is necessarily dispositive of whether a court should exercise
discretionary review of a moot appeal.” (Id. at p. 286.)
      On balance, after considering all the pertinent factors
and the totality of the evidence in the record—and having heard
no objection from father—we conclude discretionary review of
father’s moot appeal is not warranted.
                          DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed as moot.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                    EGERTON, J.

We concur:

             EDMON, P. J.

             LAVIN, J.

                               18