In re K.G. CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 8/19/26 In re K.G. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re K.G., et al., Persons Coming B349130 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Ct. No. 25CCJP00838A-E) AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.G., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George A. Turner, Judge. Dismissed. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Department of Children and Family Services. —————————— K.G. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over her five children based on an incident of domestic violence between mother and F.L. (father).1 Because father pled no contest to the allegations in the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition,2 the juvenile court is vested with jurisdiction over the children such that we cannot provide mother with any meaningful relief and, for that reason, the appeal is dismissed as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 I. Initial Investigation and Detention A. The Reported Incident On January 28, 2025, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a report of domestic violence between mother and father that took place the previous day. The argument concerned mother’s job as a content creator with TikTok; it escalated to the point that mother threw a plate of food at father and father responded by punching mother 1 F.L. is the father of K.G.’s three youngest children—H.L. (born June 2016) and twins, M.L. and A.L. (born September 2024). The father of the remaining children, G.V. (born December 2012) and K.G. (born January 2010), is G.V., Sr.

2 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

3 Given our disposition of the appeal, the factual and procedural summary is abbreviated.

2 in the face and throwing her to the ground. The reporting party indicated there had been two prior incidents of domestic violence between mother and father. 1. DCFS Interviews On February 6, 2025, DCFS social worker Huda El-Haj met with mother, K.G., H.L., and G.V. Mother acknowledged an argument took place over her accessing TikTok on her phone. Father became angry; mother threw a plate of food at him, and father retaliated by grabbing mother’s hair. Mother claimed father did not punch her and said the couple had no history of domestic violence. All three children heard the argument; K.G. and G.V. observed father pulling mother’s hair. K.G. noticed a red mark on mother’s forehead. The children stated mother and father had a history of arguing; K.G. witnessed mother and father pushing each other during previous arguments. 2. Police Report A Los Angeles Police Department report documented officers’ observations at the scene of the incident. Mother suffered from a laceration above her right eye and swelling to her left cheek. She indicated father was tired of her working on TikTok. An argument ensued whereupon mother threw a plate of food at father; although the food on the plate hit father, the plate missed him. Father retaliated by punching mother in the head and face multiple times and then dragging her by the hair into the living room. She said father left the residence and she was not interested in having criminal charges filed against him. K.G. told officers that she observed father on top of mother, pulling her hair.

3 B. The Petition and Detention Hearing On March 20, 2025, DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300. Based on the January 27 altercation, the petition alleged (1) there is a substantial risk that the children will suffer serious physical harm inflicted by the parents (§ 300, subd. (a), count a-1), and (2) there is a substantial risk that the children will suffer serious physical harm due to the failure of the parents to protect the children (§ 300, subd. (b), count b-1). At the April 4, 2025 detention hearing, the juvenile court found the children came within the definition of section 300. It detained father’s biological children from him and released them to mother before setting an adjudication hearing. II. Secondary Investigation During the first week of May 2025, El-Haj interviewed mother, father, K.G., G.V., and H.L. Their interviews regarding the January 2025 domestic violence and prior occurrences are documented in the May 22, 2025 Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, in relevant part, as follows: -- Mother admitted that, during the January 2025 incident, she threw a plastic plate of food at father, and the food hit him in the face. She said father pulled her hair and dragged her “a little bit to the living room,” but denied he hit her.4 Mother denied there were prior physical altercations with father.

4 DCFS provided a transcript of a video depicting mother’s interaction with police officers when they arrived on scene. The transcript reflects mother told officers that father “hit [her] everywhere,” he was “dragging” her and “pulling [her] hair so hard.”

4 -- Father told the social worker that mother threw soup at him during the January 2025 incident. He admitted grabbing mother’s hair but denied dragging her by the hair and striking her in the face. Father said he and mother “always fight” but their arguments are verbal. -- K.G. confirmed father grabbed mother’s hair during the argument. Afterward, mother had a red mark on the side of her forehead and “some red” on the top of her cheek. K.G. recalled a prior incident of domestic violence wherein she could hear father hitting mother. -- When G.V. entered the room following the January 2025 altercation, he “saw food everywhere.” He did not witness the altercation, but he heard mother tell police officers that father hit her in the head. G.V. observed mother with a purple swollen eye and a red cheek. He recalled a prior incident wherein father attempted to take mother’s phone and mother threw his clothes outside. On that occasion, mother told G.V. that father hit her. -- H.L. saw father hit mother on the face during the January 2025 altercation. After the incident, H.L. observed a red mark on mother’s eye. The DCFS report concluded by recommending the section 300 petition be sustained with mother to be provided family maintenance services and father granted family enhancement services. III. Adjudication/Disposition At the July 11, 2025 adjudication hearing, counsel for DCFS represented to the juvenile court that DCFS has “entered a full settlement” with father. The juvenile court accepted father’s plea of no contest to the allegations in count b-1 of the petition;

5 count a-1 was dismissed. Following argument, the juvenile court sustained the b-1 allegation against mother. A disposition hearing was conducted on August 13, 2025, wherein the juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court and ordered they remain in mother’s custody with family maintenance services. DISCUSSION “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 the plaintiff seeks. [Citation.]” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.).) In other words, “relief is effective when it ‘can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 277.) “[W]hen a parent has demonstrated a specific legal or practical consequence that will be averted upon reversal, the case is not moot, and merits review is required. When a parent has not made such a showing, the case is moot, but the court has discretion to decide the merits nevertheless.” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.) There is no appellate challenge to the findings of jurisdiction over the children based on father’s plea of no contest to the allegations in count b-1. This is fatal to the appeal because 6 “[a] jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [him or] her within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent.” (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) Accordingly, even if mother’s appeal is successful, the children would remain under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court based on the uncontested sustained count concerning father’s conduct. There appears to be some overlap between mother’s argument that the appeal is not moot and her assertion that appellate courts may exercise their discretion to reach the merits of a jurisdictional finding. From what we can tell, mother takes the position that (1) the appeal is not moot because the jurisdictional finding against her exposes her to a risk of being reported by DCFS for inclusion in California’s Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) (Pen. Code, § 11170), and (2) even if the appeal is moot, we should exercise our discretion to consider it on the merits. “Only reports of ‘child abuse or severe neglect’—not ‘general neglect’—must be forwarded to the CACI. [Citation.]” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 281.) This data is accessible to certain potential employers and law enforcement. (See id at p. 279.) Mother has not established that the factual basis for the subdivision (b) allegation against her warrants inclusion in the CACI.5 She does not contend that DCFS has reported her for inclusion in the CACI, nor does she allege that she received the required notice that she has been reported (Pen. Code, § 11169, 5 DCFS acknowledges mother’s conduct—throwing a plate of food at father—“does not meet the reporting requirements for the CACI . . . .”

7 subd. (c)). Speculation that mother will be reported for potential inclusion in the CACI is not a compelling reason to address the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction as to mother. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 281–282 [rejecting father’s claim that his appeal is not moot because he failed to demonstrate the general neglect allegation against him was reported for inclusion in the CACI or that it was reportable]; compare In re S.R. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1042, 1053–1054 [appeal is not moot where “there is no dispute that [m]other’s conduct is reportable, and there has been no representation by [DCFS] that the report has not been and will not be forwarded to the [Department of Justice for inclusion in the CACI].”) We recognize appellate courts have discretion to hear an otherwise moot appeal if the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding “‘“could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction.”’ [Citations.]” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285.) Mother’s argument for a discretionary review of her contention relies solely on the possibility that she will be included in the CACI. We have already determined the contention does not save the appeal from dismissal for mootness because it is speculative. For the same reason, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider it on the merits.

8 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

KUMAR, J.* I concur:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

 Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

9 In re K.G. et al. B349130 KIM (D.), J., Dissenting Because the jurisdictional finding mother challenges on appeal rendered her an offending parent, I would exercise our discretion to consider the merits of her appeal (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 285; In re Quentin H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 608, 613) and conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding against her (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238; In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941).

KIM (D.), J.