Opinion
B296520
02-11-2020
In re L.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.F., Defendant and Appellant.
Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP06489 APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jana Seng, Judge. Dismissed. Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
D.F. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's disposition orders declaring her four children, L.G., V.W., A.F., and S.B., dependents of the court, placing them in mother's custody, and requiring mother to participate in a domestic violence support group. Mother contends the court erred in allowing the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) to amend the dependency petition at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing to allege mother failed to protect her children from S.B.'s father, L.B. (father), when mother would not have been an offending parent under the original petition.
Each of the children have different fathers.
After the parties filed their briefs, the court terminated jurisdiction over all the children and awarded mother sole physical custody of them. The Department subsequently moved to dismiss mother's appeal, arguing her challenges to the jurisdiction finding and disposition orders are no longer justiciable because we can no longer provide her any effective relief. Although mother agrees that the disposition orders are no longer in effect, she still seeks reversal of the jurisdiction finding because of the potential for adverse consequences against her. Because we cannot provide mother with any practical relief, we grant the Department's motion and dismiss mother's appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2018, the Department received a referral alleging mother and father physically attacked each other in front of the children. Several of the children, their maternal grandmother, and their maternal aunt were present during the altercation and confirmed that father struck mother several times after she threw some of his belongings out of her apartment and tried to hit him with a plastic toy gun. V.W. also reported that father had broke some of the windows and doors on the family's home, and A.F. reported that during a different incident, father struck mother's face and chipped one of her teeth. Mother claimed she had an active restraining order against father, but she could only provide the Department a copy of a restraining order that expired in 2015.
In October 2018, the Department filed a dependency petition on the children's behalf under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The petition alleged mother and father had a history of engaging in domestic violence, including the August 2018 altercation and the incident when father broke the doors and windows to mother's home. The petition also alleged father had a criminal history, including a conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, romantic partner, or cohabitant. The petition alleged father's violence against mother placed the children at serious risk of harm (A-1 and B-1 allegations).
At the detention hearing, the court found mother was a non-offending parent under the petition, and it issued a temporary restraining order protecting her from father. The court found the petition alleged a prima facie case and ordered the children detained from father's custody and placed with mother.
In February 2019, the court held the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Father testified about his relationship with mother and the August 2018 incident. After father testified, the children's counsel and the Department asked the court to amend the petition to allege mother failed to protect the children based on her involvement in the August 2018 incident as well as the incident when father broke some of her windows and doors. Mother objected, arguing she did not have sufficient notice of the proposed amendment. The court noted mother's objection but amended the petition to conform to proof.
The court then dismissed the petition's A-1 allegation and sustained the B-1 allegation, which, as amended, read:
The language the court struck from the allegation is identified by strike marks and the words the court added are bolded.
"The children['s] ... mother, [D.F.] and the mother's male companion, [L.B.], father of the child, [S.B.], have a history of engaging in violent altercations in the presence of the children. On or about 8/18/18, [L.B.] struck the mother's head with [his] fist and an object, in the presence of the children. The mother struck [L.B.] with an object. On a prior occasion, [L.B.] struck the mother's face and caused injuries to the mother's teeth. On a prior occasion, [L.B.] broke windows and doors in the children's home. [L.B.] has a criminal history of a conviction of Inflict[ing] Corporal Injury Spouse/Cohabitant/Date and Exhibit Deadly Weapon: Not Firearm. Such violent conduct on the part of [L.B.] against the mother and the mother's failure to protect the children endangers the children's physical health and safety and places the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage and danger."
After sustaining the amended petition, the court declared all four children dependents of the court. The court ordered the children to remain placed in mother's custody, mother to participate in a domestic violence support group, and father to attend domestic violence classes. The court awarded father monitored visits with S.B.
Mother appealed the court's disposition orders.
In August 2019, at the six-month review hearing, the court terminated jurisdiction over the children and signed custody orders concerning L.G., V.W., and S.B. The court awarded mother sole physical custody of all four children.
We grant the Department's request to take judicial notice of copies of the court's minute orders terminating jurisdiction, dated August 21 and August 23, 2019, as well as copies of the custody orders concerning V.W., L.G., and S.B., dated August 23, 2019.
DISCUSSION
It is a fundamental principle of appellate practice that a reviewing court will not decide an issue if it cannot provide the appellant any practical relief. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489-1490.) " ' "A judicial tribunal ordinarily may consider and determine only an existing controversy, and not a moot question or abstract proposition ... ." ' [Citation.] An important requirement for justiciability is the availability of 'effective' relief—that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status." (Id. at p. 1490.)
Generally, "an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot." (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) A claim on appeal is not moot, however, "if the purported error infects the outcome of subsequent proceedings." (Ibid.) We therefore must determine on a case-by-case basis whether an order terminating jurisdiction has rendered moot a challenge on appeal to the jurisdiction findings and disposition orders. (Ibid.)
Here, the court made a single jurisdiction finding based on mother's and father's conduct—i.e., father's violence against mother and mother's failure to protect the children by allowing father to be near them. Although mother challenges the finding as it relates to her conduct, no one challenges the finding as it relates to father's conduct. Consequently, even if we were to reverse the finding as to mother, there would remain a factual basis under which the court could exercise jurisdiction over the children. (See In re P.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1212 ["a child may be declared a dependent if the actions of either parent bring the child within the statutory definitions of dependency"].) In any event, the court terminated jurisdiction over the children and awarded mother sole physical custody of them at the six-month review hearing while this appeal was pending.
Mother concedes her challenge to the court's disposition order requiring her to participate in a domestic violence support group was rendered moot once the court terminated dependency jurisdiction. Mother urges us, however, to reach the merits of her challenge to the jurisdiction finding, arguing the reversal "would be the difference between [her] being an 'offending' or 'non-offending' parent." (See In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763 (Drake M.).) Mother's reliance on Drake M. is misplaced.
In Drake M., the father appealed only the jurisdiction findings and disposition orders against him that were based on his use of medical marijuana; he did not challenge the jurisdiction findings based on the mother's history of drug abuse. (Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 762.) At the time of the father's appeal, the dependency case was still pending in the juvenile court. (Id. at pp. 761-762.) The Court of Appeal reached the merits of the father's claims because a reversal of the findings against him could be the difference between him being an "offending" parent versus a "non-offending" parent in the underlying dependency case. (Id. at p. 763.) The court explained, "Such a distinction may have far-reaching implications with respect to future dependency proceedings in this case and father's parental rights." (Ibid.) In other words, refusing to reach the merits of the father's claims could have had significant repercussions for the father going forward in that same case, such as whether he could continue to retain custody of the children.
In this case, on the other hand, the juvenile court has already terminated dependency jurisdiction and awarded mother sole physical custody of the children. Thus, even if we were to reverse the challenged jurisdiction finding and mother were deemed a "non-offending" parent, that status would not have any practical effect in this dependency case, since the case is no longer pending.
Mother also claims a favorable decision would preclude the Department from discussing her "misconduct" as it relates to the failure to protect allegation in any future dependency proceedings involving the children. We disagree. The substance of the failure to protect allegation against mother would likely be available for the Department to discuss in any future dependency proceeding, regardless of whether we reverse the jurisdiction finding based on that allegation. (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 330 ["the substance of the spanking allegation would almost certainly be available in any future dependency or family court proceeding, regardless of any determination on our part as to whether it formed an independent basis for juvenile court jurisdiction"].) Because mother has not identified any specific adverse consequences that could stem from leaving the jurisdiction finding against her intact, we decline to reach the merits of her claims.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
LAVIN, P. J. WE CONCUR:
EDMON, J.
DHANIDINA, J