In re Evelyn R. CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 8/25/26 In re Evelyn R. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re EVELYN R., a Person B347658 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 25CCJP01440A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASMINE V., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cristina Gutierrez Legaspi, Judge. Dismissed. Leongah Wheeler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** Jasmine V. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court judgment declaring her daughter, Evelyn R., a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 The juvenile court declared Evelyn a dependent of the court on July 8, 2025, based on mother and Joel R.’s (father) history of violent altercations, father’s failure to comply with a criminal protective order protecting mother and Evelyn from father, and a finding that father’s violent conduct and mother’s failure to protect Evelyn created a detrimental home environment that placed Evelyn at risk of serious physical harm.2 Mother challenges the jurisdictional finding that she failed to protect Evelyn. On January 6, 2026, while this appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over Evelyn but stayed its order pending receipt of a custody order granting the parents joint legal and physical custody of the child.3 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Father is not a party to this appeal. 3 The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS) motion for judicial notice of postjudgment evidence, filed concurrently with its respondent’s brief in this matter, is hereby granted. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 2 On January 9, 2026, upon receipt of the juvenile custody order, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and signed and filed the custody order granting the parents joint legal and physical custody of Evelyn. In light of these subsequent events, there is no effective relief this court can provide mother. We therefore dismiss mother’s appeal as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prior child welfare history On September 19, 2022, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services received a referral alleging the parents emotionally abused Evelyn, and mother neglected Evelyn. On September 18, 2022, mother contacted law enforcement asking for assistance. Father was heavily inebriated and accused mother of infidelity. During the argument, mother left the apartment with their then-two-year-old daughter Evelyn. Mother returned to the apartment after she realized she had forgotten her wallet. After she put Evelyn down, she and father again began arguing. Father pushed mother down, stood over her and punched her several times on the back of the neck and head. Father then took Evelyn out of the room. Mother followed, and they again argued. Father pushed mother down and kicked her on the head with a bare foot. Evelyn, who witnessed the altercation, was not injured. Father was arrested. Mother sustained visible swelling on the upper right side of her forehead but refused an emergency protective order and prosecution.

Cal.4th 664, 676 [appellate court may consider postjudgment evidence in the context of a motion to dismiss a juvenile dependency appeal].)

3 Mother did not say if she was going to continue the relationship with father or if she would allow him back into the home. During the investigation the allegations were deemed truthful. Father assaulted mother while under the influence of alcohol in front of then-two-year-old Evelyn. The assault resulted in bruising on mother’s eye and swelling in her head and in father’s arrest. Father verbalized minimal insight into his actions and enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous pending completion of a domestic violence class. Mother took protective action by relocating to a relative’s home with the child. Mother agreed to be referred to services such as therapy and parenting education. The situation appeared to have stabilized. The allegation of neglect as to father was closed as substantiated. The emotional abuse allegation as to father and the neglect allegation as to mother were closed as inconclusive. The emotional abuse allegation as to mother was closed as unfounded. Current referral and investigation On April 20, 2025, DCFS received a referral alleging mother neglected and father emotionally abused Evelyn. An unknown person called 911 at 12:44 a.m. on April 20, 2025, alleging a domestic violence incident had taken place at a nearby apartment, and father “took off” with the child. Officers responded to the residence. Father was outside with Evelyn, who was then five years old. Evelyn was “crying as if she was scared.” Father was under the influence of alcohol and very emotional. Officers convinced father to relinquish the child, whom they then took to mother. Mother was described as “hysterical.” Mother reported father had picked her up at 10:00 p.m., and she noted he had been drinking. When they came home, she 4 observed a bottle of tequila on the counter. The couple’s argument about father’s drinking escalated, and father punched mother three times in the mouth. There was a laceration on the inside of mother’s mouth along with redness and swelling. Paramedics wanted to transport mother to the hospital due to her accelerated heart rate, but she refused. Mother said Evelyn was asleep at the time of the incident. Father then went in and woke up Evelyn because he planned to take her away. An active restraining order that issued on April 3, 2023, in a Palm Springs case was due to expire on April 3, 2026. The restraining order was related to domestic violence, and mother and Evelyn were the protected parties. In spite of the restraining order, mother acknowledged she and father had been living together for the preceding two and one-half years. Father was extremely emotional and smelled of alcohol. His eyes were red and watery, and his speech was impaired. He was arrested, and a social worker interviewed father at the Montebello police station. Father appeared coherent and reported having no knowledge of the 2023 restraining order. He confirmed there was a criminal case due to a domestic violence incident in 2022 but was unaware of the restraining order. Father confirmed he had been living with mother for two and a half years. Father reported he was arrested due to allegations of domestic violence with mother. On the night of the incident, father and Evelyn traveled by car to pick up mother from work in Pasadena. Father disclosed he does not have a valid driver’s license; however, he admitted to transporting the child in the vehicle. Father denied being under the influence of alcohol on his 5 way to pick up mother. When they returned home father opened a new bottle of tequila. Father reported he drank five shots of the alcohol and denied feeling intoxicated. Father reported he and mother sat at the table, and mother told him she did not want to renew their apartment lease. When father asked why, he also asked if she was having an affair. Mother did not answer the question and turned her face whenever he repeated the question. Father reported they began to yell and argue. When mother became hysterical and father needed to calm her down, he slapped her on the face. Father denied using a closed fist. Father reported mother ran out of the apartment to the neighbor’s home. Father then took Evelyn outside to wait for law enforcement to arrive. Father reported Evelyn did not witness the incident; however, he believed she was aware of what was going on because she was awake when he walked into her room. When the social worker arrived at the family home, no one was home, so she called mother, who reported she was at work. Mother said Evelyn was at school, and maternal grandmother would pick her up from there. Mother said law enforcement told her about the active restraining order but denied any prior knowledge of it. Mother agreed to call law enforcement if the restraining order was ever violated in the future. During the social worker’s in-person interview, she observed a contusion on mother’s right cheek. Mother confirmed it was a result of the incident of domestic violence on April 20, 2025. Regarding the 2023 restraining order, mother believed it was only active for four months and confirmed she and father separated for four months after the earlier incident of domestic 6 violence. The couple reconciled because father said he would change and he wanted to be a family. Mother now planned to move out of the family’s apartment and no longer wanted to be in a relationship with father. Father was granted a temporary release on April 22, 2025, until the next criminal court hearing on May 6, 2025. Father was released with an ankle monitor and instructed not to contact mother and Evelyn, not to return home, and not to take the vehicle from mother. Father reported he went to the family home to pick up his belongings when mother was at work. When the social worker went to the family home while mother was in the process of packing her belongings, the social worker observed father’s clothes to still be in the dresser. On May 7, 2025, mother denied having any contact with father. Removal, section 300 petition and initial hearing On May 14, 2025, the juvenile court granted DCFS’s request for a removal warrant removing Evelyn from father’s custody. Evelyn remained in mother’s custody. On May 16, 2025, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Evelyn, alleging the parents had a history of engaging in violent altercations and were abusers of marijuana and alcohol. At the June 2, 2025 initial hearing, the juvenile court ordered Evelyn detained from father’s custody and released to mother’s custody. The court ordered no contact between mother and father and ordered them to stay 100 yards away from each other. The matter was set for an adjudication hearing.

7 Further investigation In a July 7, 2025 jurisdiction/disposition report, DCFS reported father’s criminal history included an October 2013 arrest for possession of a controlled substance as well as the September 2022 arrest for inflicting corporal injury on a domestic cohabitant. On April 22, 2025, criminal charges were filed against father due to the domestic violence incident with mother. The criminal court issued a protective order protecting mother and Evelyn against father and a 100-yard stay-away order. Father was released on his own recognizance with an electronic monitoring program. On May 29, 2025, a jury convicted father of misdemeanor injury to a cohabitant and misdemeanor contempt of court for his violation of the protective order. Father was scheduled to have a probation and sentencing hearing on June 20, 2025. Mother denied failing to protect Evelyn, stating she and father separated for four months after the initial domestic violence incident, but they resumed their relationship because father said he had changed. Mother said father participated in an online domestic violence program, but she did not know if it was completed. Mother saw father at the juvenile court detention hearing and twice in May 2025 at the criminal courthouse. Father texted her on June 12 and June 14, 2025, but she did not respond. Mother did not want to resume her relationship with father. Regarding father’s drug use, mother reported father has a “marijuana problem,” saying he used marijuana daily, and there were times he smoked marijuana and took care of Evelyn alone. Mother reported she or maternal grandmother would take care of 8 Evelyn while father drank alcohol. However, if something angered father while he was under the influence of alcohol, it triggered arguments. Mother stated this occurred infrequently. Mother denied father operated a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Father drank tequila when he had a bad day, and he was under the influence of tequila during the domestic violence incidents that occurred in September 2022 and April 2025. In a July 7, 2025 last minute information for the court, the dependency investigator reported on June 20, 2025, father was placed on summary probation for three years and ordered to obey the protective order issued that day protecting mother from father. The criminal protective order included an order not to abuse, a no-contact order, and a 100-yard stay-away order with an exception for peaceful contact for the safe exchange of Evelyn and court-ordered visitation as stated in any family, juvenile, or probate court order. The criminal protective order was scheduled to expire on June 20, 2028. The criminal court ordered father to enroll within 30 days and to then successfully complete a 52-week domestic violence program, perform 20 days of community labor, attend 26 Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings or Mela Outpatient Treatment Program (six months minimum). A progress hearing was set for September 22, 2025. On June 11, 2025, father enrolled in a substance abuse outpatient program through Mela Counseling Services. On June 17, 2025, father enrolled in a domestic violence intervention education program through Mela Counseling services.

9 Adjudication and disposition At the July 7, 2025 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court admitted DCFS’s reports into evidence and took judicial notice of its prior findings and orders in this case. Evelyn’s counsel asked the juvenile court to sustain the domestic violence counts as written, arguing it was not the first incident of domestic violence between the parents, father visibly injured mother and grabbed Evelyn while under the influence of alcohol. The responding officer observed Evelyn crying and mother hysterical. Evelyn’s counsel added mother failed to protect Evelyn because the parents had a history of domestic violence, and mother had an active restraining order against father at the time she reconciled with him. Mother’s counsel argued the court should dismiss mother from the section 300 petition, arguing mother was not aware the criminal protective order did not expire until 2026. Mother had recently separated from father, was no longer living with him, and had been working with the police and DCFS. The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition, including the allegation that mother failed to protect Evelyn from father. The court found the parents’ domestic violence was ongoing and did not find credible mother’s statement she was unaware of the 2023 criminal protective order. The juvenile court specified, “This court is not persuaded that mother had no knowledge of the [criminal protective order], and mother’s actions in allowing the father to have unlimited and unmonitored access to this child … places this child a[t] risk of harm, and mother failed to protect.” The juvenile court declared the child a dependent of the court, ordered her removed from father’s custody and released to 10 mother’s custody. The court ordered mother to participate in a 26-week domestic violence support group for victims and ordered father to participate in a 52-week domestic violence program. The matter was set for a section 364 hearing on January 6, 2026. Appeal On July 17, 2025, mother filed a notice of appeal. Postjudgment proceedings On January 6, 2026, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over Evelyn with a custody order granting the parents joint legal and physical custody of Evelyn, which was stayed until receipt of the juvenile custody order on January 9, 2026.

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.”’” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) “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.”’” (Ibid.) “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.” (Ibid.) “As a general rule, 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.) This includes circumstances where a 11 parent has appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and jurisdiction is later terminated with custody orders and the parent has not appealed from those custody orders. (In re Gael C. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 220, 225–226.) However, mootness must be decided on a “‘case-by-case basis.’” (C.C., supra, at p. 1488.) A court has the discretion to hear a moot appeal where (1) the appeal presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, (2) there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the same parties, or (3) a material question remains for the trial court’s determination. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) In the context of juvenile dependency matters, various other circumstances may arise causing appellate courts to “exercise their inherent discretion to decide certain challenges to juvenile court jurisdictional findings, notwithstanding mootness.” (Id. at p. 285.) For example, appellate courts may consider challenges to jurisdictional findings in moot juvenile dependency matters where 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.”’” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285.) Discretionary review may also be appropriate where the jurisdictional finding is “based on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct,” or where the case became moot due to prompt compliance by the parents. (Id. at pp. 285– 286.) Mother has declined to ask this court to exercise its discretion to decide this moot appeal.

12 As jurisdiction has been terminated with mother’s custody rights intact, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

LUI, P. J.

GOORVITCH, J.