Court Opinion

ID: 9396927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 22:03:37.934567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.392397
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/23/23 In re Josiah M. CA2/3

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 Ca l ifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
 o p inions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This
 o p inion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     DIVISION THREE

 In re Josiah M., a Person                                    B318551
 Coming Under the Juvenile
 Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                           Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF                                                Super. Ct. No.
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY                                          21CCJP05004A
 SERVICES,

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

        v.

 J.M.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
      Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy
County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
            _______________________________________
                          INTRODUCTION

      J.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition
order declaring her son Josiah M. a dependent of the court.
Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s
jurisdiction finding based on the parents’ history of domestic
violence.1 After mother appealed, the court terminated
jurisdiction and awarded her sole physical custody of Josiah.
Because we cannot provide mother any effective relief, we
dismiss her appeal as moot.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      Mother and father have one child together, Josiah, who was
born in January 2020. According to some of Josiah’s
grandparents, mother and father have a toxic relationship, with a
history of domestic violence.
      In early October 2021, the Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) received two referrals alleging
mother and father engaged in domestic violence in front of
Josiah. Mother and Josiah’s maternal grandmother were arguing
with father over the parents’ finances. Father became upset and
threw an object at mother, hitting her. Mother called the police,
and father fled. When the police arrived, mother refused to let
them interview the maternal grandmother about the incident.
Mother also declined an emergency protective order against
father.
      After the maternal grandmother and the police left, father
returned home. When father saw mother packing her bags, he

1The court sustained the challenged finding as to both mother and
Josiah’s father, G.M. (father). Father is not a party to this appeal.

                                    2
pushed her to the floor. Father punched mother and tried to
choke her. When mother broke free, she ran to the kitchen and
grabbed a knife. Mother stabbed father in his shoulder or arm as
he approached her. Josiah was in the house when mother stabbed
father. After the parents’ altercation, mother and Josiah moved
out of the family’s home, and mother obtained a temporary
restraining order against father.
       In late October 2021, the Department filed a dependency
petition on Josiah’s behalf, alleging the parents have a history of
engaging in domestic violence in front of Josiah, including during
the early October 2021 incident, which places the child at risk of
serious physical harm (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (a) & (b);
a-1 and b-1 allegations). The court detained Josiah from father
and released the child to mother’s custody.
       The court held the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on
February 15, 2022. The court sustained the b-1 allegation and
dismissed the a-1 allegation. The court declared Josiah a
dependent of the court, removed him from father, and placed him
with mother under the Department’s supervision. The court
awarded the parents family maintenance services.
       Mother, but not father, appealed the court’s disposition
order. In February 2023, after mother filed her appeal, the court
terminated jurisdiction and awarded mother sole physical
custody of Josiah, with both parents to share legal custody of the
child.

                          DISCUSSION

      The Department contends mother’s appeal is moot because
even if we were to reverse the jurisdiction finding against mother,
the court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over Josiah would
remain undisturbed because father does not challenge the

                                 3
jurisdiction finding against him. Additionally, as noted above, the
court terminated jurisdiction over Josiah and awarded mother
sole physical custody of the child while her appeal was pending.
Mother argues we should reach the merits of her appeal because
the challenged jurisdiction finding could prejudice her in future
dependency proceedings or preclude her from challenging her
inclusion in the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI).
       A case is moot when “events ‘ “render[] it impossible for [a]
court, if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to grant
[her] any effective relief.” ’ ” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276
(D.P.).) Effective relief exists when the plaintiff is suffering an
“ongoing harm” as a result of the challenged ruling and that
harm is “redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome
the plaintiff seeks.” (Ibid.) We must determine on a case-by-case
basis whether subsequent events in a dependency proceeding
have made the case moot and whether our decision will affect the
outcome of a subsequent proceeding. (Ibid.)
       Where, as here, the juvenile court has terminated
jurisdiction without issuing an order that continues to impact the
appealing parent, such as an adverse custody order, the issue is
whether we can grant that parent any effective relief. (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 277.) In such a case, effective relief exists
if the parent can show she “suffered from a change in legal
status.” (Ibid.) “Although a jurisdictional finding that a parent
engaged in abuse or neglect of a child is generally stigmatizing,
complaining of ‘stigma’ alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal.
The stigma must be paired with some effect on the plaintiff’s
legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable
court decision.” (Ibid.)

                                   4
       Since sustaining Josiah’s petition, the court has terminated
jurisdiction and awarded mother sole physical custody of her son.
Mother doesn’t contend she is still subject to any disposition
order or other order from Josiah’s dependency proceedings that
continues to adversely affect her. Thus, as to the underlying
proceedings, we cannot offer mother any effective relief.
       As to potential future harm, the Supreme Court in D.P.
rejected both arguments that mother raises here to contend her
appeal is not moot. First, the court held that the mere possibility
of a parent’s inclusion in CACI is not sufficient to give rise to a
justiciable controversy. (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 281–282.)
Thus, because mother does not claim she has been listed in CACI,
and nothing in the record shows the Department has or will
report her name for inclusion in that database, her concern that
she one day could be listed in the database does not render her
appeal reviewable. (Id. at pp. 278–282.) Likewise, mother’s
concern that the jurisdiction finding is stigmatizing and could
negatively affect her in a hypothetical future dependency
proceeding is too speculative to require review of her appeal. (Id.
at pp. 277–278, 282.)
       Since mother does not identify any change in legal status
stemming from the challenged jurisdiction finding, we cannot
grant her any effective relief. Mother’s appeal, therefore, is moot.
(D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.)
       “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.) In deciding whether to exercise such
discretion, “[c]ourts may consider whether the challenged
jurisdictional finding ‘could be prejudicial to the appellant or
could potentially impact the current or future dependency

                                 5
proceedings,’ or ‘ “could have other consequences for [the
appellant], beyond jurisdiction.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 285.)
       Mother argues we should exercise our discretion to reach
the merits of her appeal. We decline to do so. For the same
reasons we just discussed, any potential negative consequences
that could flow from the jurisdiction finding against mother are
speculative. For instance, the finding cannot impact mother in
the underlying proceedings because the court has terminated
jurisdiction and returned Josiah to her custody, with no adverse
orders affecting her. Likewise, mother hasn’t shown how the
finding is likely to impact a hypothetical future dependency or
family law proceeding. While an allegation of domestic violence is
no doubt serious, mother’s conduct in this case was not in any
way targeted at Josiah. Indeed, Josiah never was removed from
mother’s custody, and there was no evidence that mother struck
or otherwise physically harmed Josiah. For these reasons, any
prejudice the jurisdiction finding may cause mother in the future
is too uncertain to warrant the exercise of our discretion to reach
the merits of mother’s appeal.

                                 6
                       DISPOSITION

    The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                     LAVIN, J.
WE CONCUR:

    EDMON, P. J.

    EGERTON, J.

                               7