In re K.G. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SJ012929
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- dismissed — The appeal is dismissed as moot.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court declared the minor a dependent and denied the father's request for immediate placement, finding it detrimental at that time. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the trial court subsequently ordered the minor placed with the father, granting the specific relief sought.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Dismissal of appeal as moot“Because Ryan has, in fact, already obtained from the juvenile court the relief he properly seeks in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal as moot.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the mootness doctrine, noting that the appellant had already received the specific placement relief he challenged in the initial order, rendering further review unnecessary. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313 — When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies that the specific relief sought (placement) was granted post-appeal, rendering the challenge to the initial denial moot. It appropriately limits the scope of review to the issues raised in the opening brief.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court declared three-year-old K.G. a dependent, removed her from her mother under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1), and found under section 361.2 that it would be detrimental to immediately place her with her nonoffending, noncustodial father Ryan T. in Virginia. On Ryan's appeal, the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of a later June 17, 2014 order placing K.G. with Ryan and dismissed the appeal as moot without reaching the merits of the detriment finding.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Disposition order denying father's request for placement as a nonoffending, noncustodial parent under section 361.2 based on a finding of detriment“Because Ryan has, in fact, already obtained from the juvenile court the relief he properly seeks in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal as moot.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court never reviewed the detriment finding on the merits; it held that the subsequent placement of K.G. with Ryan gave him the only relief his opening brief sought, so no effective relief remained. On the record quoted, Ryan's appeal targeted only the placement denial, and he conceded placement had occurred, so the mootness conclusion follows from In re Jessica K. The court did not, however, discuss whether the adverse detriment finding could carry collateral consequences in later custody or termination proceedings, a consideration that sometimes leads dependency courts to exercise discretion to reach otherwise moot issues; because Ryan did not raise that argument, the omission is understandable. |
Appellate court's grant of judicial notice of post-order juvenile court findings and the June 17, 2014 placement order“He did not oppose our taking judicial notice of the June 17, 2014 order, and we therefore take judicial notice of it.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Judicial notice of subsequent juvenile court orders to determine mootness is routine, the request was unopposed, and the court gave the parties notice and an opportunity to object before noticing the June 17 order. Nothing in the opinion suggests an irregularity. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313 — When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.
- missed: In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394 — An appeal from a dependency order is not necessarily moot where the challenged finding of detriment could prejudice the parent in subsequent proceedings; the reviewing court may exercise discretion to reach the issue.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The dismissal is defensible: Ryan sought only placement, placement was ordered and effected, and Jessica K. supports dismissal when no effective relief remains. The court skipped any discussion of whether the unreviewed section 361.2 detriment finding could have collateral consequences in later custody or termination-of-jurisdiction proceedings, a question its own division has addressed in holding some dependency appeals not moot despite changed circumstances.
Opinion
Filed 7/24/14 In re K.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 K.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D065499 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. SJ012929) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RYAN T., Defendant and Appellant;
KAREN G., Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G.
Haehnle, Judge. The appeal is dismissed as moot.
Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Karen G.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Tahra Broderson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency.
Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
This is an appeal by the father, Ryan T., from the juvenile court's disposition order declaring his three-year-old daughter, K.G., a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 360, subdivision (d), and denying Ryan's request for placement as a nonoffending, noncustodial parent under section 361.2. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Because the juvenile court has since placed K.G. with Ryan, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition to protect K.G. after she was discovered to have numerous injuries consistent with nonaccidental trauma. K.G.'s mother and her boyfriend were K.G.'s exclusive caregivers at the time she was injured. Ryan, who lives in Virginia, traveled to California to seek K.G.'s placement with him.
At the contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court received evidence that Ryan participated in parenting instruction, individual and conjoint therapy with K.G., and had successful unsupervised visits with K.G. The Agency nonetheless argued "it would be detrimental to wholesale return the child to father at this time," and requested "a transition." The court found jurisdiction over K.G. and removed her from her mother 2 under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). The court found it would be detrimental to immediately place K.G. with Ryan in Virginia under section 361.2. Ryan appealed that determination.
The Agency contends Ryan's appeal is moot and moves unopposed that we take judicial notice of interim findings and orders reflecting that Ryan has continued to have successful visits with K.G., his home was successfully evaluated for placement, and the Agency now recommends K.G. be placed with Ryan. We grant the Agency's request for judicial notice.
We notified the parties of our intent to take judicial notice of the juvenile court's subsequent order dated June 17, 2014, in which the court ordered K.G. placed with Ryan.
We directed any party who opposed our taking judicial notice of this order to submit written opposition. We also directed any party who contends the June 17 order does not render this appeal moot to explain why, including by specifically advising the court whether Ryan now has custody of K.G.
The only submission we received was from Ryan. He did not oppose our taking judicial notice of the June 17, 2014 order, and we therefore take judicial notice of it.
Ryan advised this court that K.G. has been placed with him since no later than July 14.
Nevertheless, he argues the appeal is not moot because the juvenile court has not yet ordered that Ryan assume legal and physical custody of K.G. and terminated dependency jurisdiction. We are not persuaded. Ryan's appeal challenged only the juvenile court's initial order "denying Ryan's request for placement . . . ." (Italics added.) Indeed, throughout his opening brief, Ryan addresses only the juvenile court's determination 3 regarding placement—he does not address custody or termination of jurisdiction.
Because Ryan has, in fact, already obtained from the juvenile court the relief he properly seeks in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal as moot. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315 ["When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed."].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Jessica K. B132583 · 2000-04-18