In re J.G. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JJP001344
- Trial judge
- Marco D. Nunez
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court ordered the removal of the child from the mother's custody following a contested disposition hearing, but subsequently returned the child to the mother's custody in a later order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because the mother had already received the relief she sought in the juvenile court.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Dismissal of appeal as moot“We conclude Mother’s appeal from the dispositional order removing Child from her custody is moot because the subsequent June 17 Order returned him to her custody.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the mootness doctrine, noting that the subsequent return of the child to the mother rendered the appeal moot as no effective relief could be granted. The court also properly declined to exercise its discretionary authority to review the merits, citing the lack of ongoing harm or impact on future proceedings. |
Authorities
- relied: In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266 — An appeal in a dependency case is moot if subsequent events prevent a court from granting the appellant any effective relief, and the court has discretion to review moot appeals based on specific factors.
- relied: In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402 — A mother's argument that the juvenile court erroneously denied her reunification services is moot if she has since been offered reunification services.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the mootness doctrine and the discretionary review factors from In re D.P. to the specific facts of the case, where the child had already been returned to the mother. The court's reasoning is clear and supported by the cited authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court, after a contested disposition hearing, found returning J.G. to Mother would be detrimental under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c), and removed him from her custody; roughly four months later it returned the child to her. On appeal from the dispositional order, the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of the later return order, held the appeal moot because Mother had already obtained the only relief she requested, declined to exercise discretionary review under In re D.P., and dismissed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Dispositional order removing J.G. from Mother's custody under section 361, subdivision (c), based on findings of reasonable efforts and detriment“We conclude Mother’s appeal from the dispositional order removing Child from her custody is moot because the subsequent June 17 Order returned him to her custody.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court never evaluated whether substantial evidence supported the removal findings; it dismissed as moot because the June 17 order returning the child supplied the exact relief Mother sought (a new disposition hearing to obtain placement). Under In re D.P., mootness turns on whether effective relief remains available, and the court correctly reasoned that a dispute solely over the timing of return cannot be redressed and will not affect later proceedings. Mother did not challenge jurisdiction and conceded mootness, and none of the D.P. discretionary factors (stigmatizing findings, prejudice in future proceedings) was implicated. Because the merits were not reached, I cannot assess whether the removal itself was error. |
Authorities
- relied: In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266 — A dependency appeal is moot when subsequent events prevent the court from granting any effective relief; mootness is assessed case by case, and the appellate court retains discretion to reach moot issues, guided by factors such as potential prejudice, stigma, and impact on future proceedings.
- relied: In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402 — A parent's challenge to a denial of reunification services is moot once the juvenile court has since offered the services, because the appellant has already obtained the relief sought.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the In re D.P. framework: the June 17 return order gave Mother the precise relief she requested, she did not attack the jurisdictional finding, and a dispute over the timing of return has no effect on future proceedings, so no effective relief was available. The court also expressly considered and rejected the D.P. discretionary factors, and Mother herself conceded mootness, leaving no argument unanswered.
Opinion
Filed 8/2/24 In re J.G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
D083684 IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JJP001344)
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.G., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Marco D. Nuñez, Judge. Dismissed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Eric R. Havens, County Counsel, Mistelle Abdelmagied, Assistant County Counsel, Kelly Ranasinghe and Wendy Miller, Deputies County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. K.G. (Mother) filed this appeal following the removal of her 14-year-old son, J.G. (Child), from her custody after a contested disposition hearing. At a subsequent hearing, the juvenile court returned Child to Mother’s custody. As Mother now agrees, this appeal is moot because the juvenile court has already granted the only relief she sought. We decline to exercise our discretionary authority to consider the appeal and instead dismiss. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Events Leading to the Appeal On December 1, 2023, the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department) took Child into protective custody after Mother suffered a mental health episode that left her unresponsive and on a psychiatric hold under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 5150. The alleged father’s whereabouts remained unknown after reasonable efforts by the Department to locate him. Thus, the incident left Child without a caregiver. On December 5, 2023, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of Child under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g). The following day, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. The court found that the Department had made a prima facie showing on the petition supporting continued removal of Child from Mother’s custody. On January 29, 2024, the court held a jurisdiction hearing and made a true finding on the petition. The court then held a contested disposition hearing on February 23, 2024, concluding the Department made reasonable efforts to prevent removal and return Child home and placement with Mother would be detrimental to him under section 361, subdivision (c).
1 Undesignated references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Consequently, the court ordered Child removed from Mother and placed in the custody of the Department. Mother filed this appeal from the dispositional order. In her opening brief, she contended that the court erred at the dispositional hearing by ordering Child removed because reasonable means existed for his return to her custody under section 361, subdivision (c). Mother sought “a new disposition hearing to [obtain] placement of the minor with mother.” B. Request for Judicial Notice and Events After the Disposition Hearing Following submission of Mother’s opening brief and the Department’s responding brief, on July 1, 2024, the Department moved for judicial notice of the juvenile court’s minute order from June 17, 2024 (the June 17 Order). In that order, the court found that Mother had made significant progress in the case and that Child would not suffer detriment if returned to her custody. Therefore, the court ordered the return of Child to Mother’s custody. We agree with the Department that judicial notice of the June 17 Order is proper under Evidence Code, sections 452, subdivision (d)(1), and 459, and grant the unopposed request. The return of Child to Mother’s custody is directly relevant to her claim that the court erred by ordering Child removed from her custody. Since the Department’s request, Mother has filed a letter brief stating that at the June 17 hearing, she received the relief she sought on appeal and would not be submitting a reply brief. DISCUSSION In addition to its arguments on the merits of the appeal, the Department raised the issue of mootness due to the return of Child to the custody of Mother. Having received the relief in juvenile court that she sought here, Mother in essence agrees that the appeal is moot. We likewise 3 agree that the June 17 Order renders this appeal moot, and we decline to exercise discretionary authority to consider it. An appeal in a dependency case is moot if subsequent events prevent a court from granting the appellant “ ‘ “any effect[ive] relief” ’ ” even if she prevails. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) Effective relief requires: (1) “an ongoing harm” that is (2) “redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the plaintiff seeks.” (Ibid.) We review mootness “ ‘ “on a case-by- case basis,” ’ ” including to determine “ ‘ “whether [our] decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding.” ’ ” (Ibid.) We conclude Mother’s appeal from the dispositional order removing Child from her custody is moot because the subsequent June 17 Order returned him to her custody. (See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404, 406 [mother’s argument that “the juvenile court erroneously denied her reunification services” was “undeniably moot, because she has since been offered reunification services”].) As she agrees, we cannot provide the relief Mother initially sought, “a new disposition hearing to [obtain] placement of the minor with mother,” because she has already received that relief. Nor will the court’s decision affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding. Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding or claim that removing Child from her custody was never appropriate; rather, the sole question is one of the proper timing of the return of custody. Whether Child should have been returned to Mother’s custody on February 23, 2024, rather than June 17, 2024, will not affect future proceedings. Even when an appeal is technically moot, we have discretion to review the merits of the challenge. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) In In re D.P., our Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors warranting discretionary review of a jurisdictional finding in the dependency context, 4 including: “whether the challenged jurisdictional finding ‘could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings,’ or ‘ “could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction” ’ ”; “whether the jurisdictional finding is based on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct”; and whether “the findings against the parent who has appealed are based on more serious conduct.” (Id. at pp. 285– 286.) None of these factors applies here, nor do we see any other reason to exercise discretion, particularly given that Mother does not wish to pursue review following the June 17 Order. DISPOSITION Mother’s appeal of the dispositional order is dismissed as moot.
BUCHANAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Dani R. G027802 · 2001-05-23