In re J.A. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from orders
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. EJ04896B
- Trial judge
- Mark T. Cumba
- Outcome
- dismissed — Appeal dismissed.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Joan K. Irion, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court declined to return the child to the father's custody at a six-month review hearing, finding it would be detrimental. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because a subsequent order had already returned the child to the father, granting the relief sought.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order declining to return J.A. to Father's custody (Detriment Finding)“We conclude Father’s appeal from the order declining to return J.A. to his custody is moot because the January order returned J.A. to Father’s custody.” | mixed | not reached | agree with court The court determined the issue was moot because the subsequent January order returned the child to the father, meaning the appellant had already received the relief requested. Therefore, the court could not grant any effective relief by reviewing the merits of the detriment finding. |
Order finding ICWA did not apply“Because J.A. is now placed with Father, the ICWA challenge is also moot.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court held the ICWA challenge was moot because ICWA does not apply to dependency proceedings where the child is placed with a parent, and the child is currently placed with the father. Thus, there is no ongoing harm capable of remedy regarding the ICWA inquiry. |
Authorities
- relied: In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266 — An appeal in a dependency case is moot if subsequent events prevent the court from granting effective relief; effective relief requires ongoing harm capable of remedy.
- relied: In re K.L. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 332 — ICWA provisions do not apply to dependency proceedings in which the juvenile court places a child with a parent.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Memorandum opinions may limit discussion of factual and procedural background to what is necessary for context and resolution of relevant issues.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the mootness doctrine from In re D.P. to the facts that the child was returned to the father, rendering the requested relief unobtainable. It also correctly cites In re K.L. to establish that ICWA does not apply to placements with parents, further supporting mootness.
At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found returning J.A. to Father would be detrimental, declined to place the child with him, and found ICWA did not apply. On appeal, the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of a later order returning J.A. to Father's custody and dismissed the appeal as moot, declining discretionary review because Father no longer wished to pursue it.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Detriment finding and order declining to return J.A. to Father's custody at the six-month review hearing“We conclude Father’s appeal from the order declining to return J.A. to his custody is moot because the January order returned J.A. to Father’s custody.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court correctly applied In re D.P.'s mootness framework: Father had already obtained the relief sought (return of J.A.), so no effective relief could be granted. Father conceded this point and stated he did not wish to pursue review, so declining discretionary review was reasonable. |
Finding that ICWA did not apply“Because J.A. is now placed with Father, the ICWA challenge is also moot.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court ICWA's placement provisions do not apply when a child is placed with a parent, as Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.1, subdivision (d), 25 U.S.C. section 1903, and In re K.L. establish. Father agreed, so the mootness conclusion is well supported. |
Authorities
- relied: In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266 — A dependency appeal is moot when subsequent events prevent the court from granting effective relief; the court retains discretion to review moot appeals based on factors such as prejudice and stigma.
- relied: In re K.L. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 332 — ICWA does not apply to dependency proceedings in which the juvenile court places the child with a parent.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — A court may resolve an appeal by memorandum opinion with an abbreviated statement of facts when the case involves only well-established legal principles.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the controlling Supreme Court mootness framework from In re D.P. and correctly recognized that ICWA does not govern placement with a parent, with both conclusions conceded by Father. The opinion is brief and procedural but answers the only live question with the right authorities.
Opinion
Filed 4/29/25 In re J.A. 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.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084949 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ04896B) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. F.A., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Mark T. Cumba, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Indra N. Bennett, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In September 2023, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that then three-year-old, J.A., was at substantial risk of harm due to J.S.’s (Mother) mental health concerns and F.A.’s (Father) failure to protect him from Mother. The juvenile court made a true finding on the petition, ordered reunification services for both parents and detained J.A. out of the parents’ custody. Father completed a domestic violence program, was engaged in parenting classes, and progressed to overnight visitation with J.A. At the six-month review hearing in September 2024, the juvenile court made a detriment finding and declined to place J.A. with Father. Father appeals from the order declining to return J.A. to his care. He contends the court erred in finding: (1) it would be detrimental to return J.A. to his custody and (2) the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. The Agency requests we take judicial notice of the court’s January 13, 2025, order (the January order) returning J.A. to Father’s custody and contends the appeal should be dismissed as moot. Father does not object to this court taking judicial notice of the January order, and we grant the request. Father concedes the order returning J.A. to his custody was the relief requested in this appeal. He also agrees with the Agency’s contention that, so long as J.A. remains in his custody the Agency is not 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) Because the parties are familiar with the background of the case and this appeal implicates only well-established legal principles, we limit our discussion of the factual and procedural background to that which is necessary for context and to resolve the relevant issues. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)
2 obliged to demonstrate initial inquiry under ICWA. We agree with the parties. An appeal in a dependency case is moot if, due to subsequent events, the court can no longer grant the appellant any effective relief—even if appellant wins. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) Relief is considered effective only if there is (1) an ongoing harm that is (2) capable of being remedied by the outcome sought. (Ibid.) Even if an appeal is technically moot, we may still choose to review its merits. (Id. at p. 282.) Several factors that may justify discretionary review include whether the finding could prejudice the appellant, affect current or future dependency proceedings, or have other consequences beyond jurisdiction; whether the conduct at issue is especially harmful or stigmatizing; and whether the findings involve more serious conduct by the appealing parent. (Id. at pp. 285–286.) We conclude Father’s appeal from the order declining to return J.A. to his custody is moot because the January order returned J.A. to Father’s custody. We cannot provide the relief Father initially sought because he has already received that relief. Additionally, the provisions of ICWA do not apply to dependency proceedings in which the juvenile court places a child with a parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd. (d); 25 U.S.C. § 1903; In re K.L. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 332, 335–339.) Because J.A. is now placed with Father, the ICWA challenge is also moot. Finally, Father indicated in his reply brief that he does not wish to pursue review following the January order. Thus, there is no reason for us to exercise our discretion to review this moot appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed as moot.
O’ROURKE, Acting P.J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17