In re J.H. CA2/8 ( 2023 )

Filed 7/12/23 In re J.H. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re J.H., a Person Coming Under B318348
the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP03674A)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Jason H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Dismissed as moot.
Brian Bitker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant
County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Jason H. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional and dispositional orders. The juvenile court
asserted jurisdiction over J.H. after finding Father had a history
of domestic violence with mother that put J.H. at risk of serious
physical harm. It also found jurisdiction over J.H. based on T.D.’s
(Mother) substance abuse and Father’s failure to protect J.H.
Father appealed, contending that the evidence does not
support the jurisdictional finding as to his domestic violence
history and the dispositional order removing J.H. from his care.
While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court returned
J.H. to Father. Because Father challenges the jurisdictional order
in so far as it impacts the dispositional order removing J.H., we
dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Father is the presumed father of J.H. J.H. was born in
2016.
DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300
petition on behalf of four-year-old J.H., alleging under subsections
(a) and (b)(1) that Mother and Father had a history of engaging in
violent verbal and physical altercations in the presence of J.H.
The petition further alleged that Mother had a history of
substance abuse including methamphetamine and amphetamine.
The petition also alleged that Father failed to protect J.H. from
Mother’s substance abuse.
The juvenile court then ordered J.H. detained from both
parents and granted monitored visitation.
2
At the December 2021 jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile
court found that Mother’s substance abuse rendered her incapable
of providing care to J.H. The court further found that Father
knew of Mother’s substance abuse and failed to protect J.H. by
allowing Mother to reside in the family home and have unlimited
access to J.H.
The juvenile court further found that Father and Mother
had a history of engaging in violent altercations in the presence of
J.H. The court held that such violent conduct endangers J.H.’s
physical safety and places J.H. at risk of serious physical harm.
At the January 28, 2022 dispositional hearing, the court
declared J.H. a dependent and removed him from Mother and
Father’s care and custody. As part of his reunification services,
the juvenile court ordered Father to participate in a domestic
violence program, parenting education, and individual counseling.
This appeal by Father followed. Mother did not appeal.
On April 6, 2023, the juvenile court held a review hearing
and found that releasing J.H. to Father would not be a detriment
to J.H. The juvenile court then terminated its prior suitable
placement order and ordered J.H. returned to Father’s custody.
On June 6, 2023, this Court requested the parties to file
supplemental briefing on whether Father’s appeal is moot after
the juvenile court returned J.H. to Father. Father failed to file a
supplemental brief.
DISCUSSION
I. Father’s Appeal Is Moot.
We begin by addressing whether Father’s appeal is
justiciable. The juvenile court sustained counts against both
Mother and Father. While Father challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence as to the allegations related to domestic violence, he
3
makes no challenge to the jurisdictional findings of Mother’s
substance abuse and Father’s failure to protect J.H. from Mother.
As our Supreme Court recently explained, an appeal
becomes moot when there is no effective relief we can provide the
appellant. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276–278.) An appeal
from a jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300 is not justiciable where “no effective relief could be
granted . . . , as jurisdiction would be established regardless of the
appellate court’s conclusions with respect to any such [challenged]
jurisdictional grounds.” (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th
308, 329; In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490.) Father
does not challenge the jurisdictional finding that he failed to
protect J.H. from Mother’s substance abuse. (In re Ashley B.
(2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979 [“[a]s long as there is one
unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another
might be inappropriate”].)
However, “a case is not moot where a jurisdictional finding
affects parental custody rights [citation], curtails a parent’s
contact with his or her child [citation], or ‘has resulted in
[dispositional] orders which continue to adversely affect’ a
parent.” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 277–278.) On the
other hand, where the parent fails to identify any “specific legal or
practical consequence from [the challenged] finding, either within
or outside the dependency proceedings,” the appellate court may
decide that no effective relief can be granted and dismiss the
appeal as moot. (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493;
accord, In re D.P., at p. 283.)
Here, Father argues that we should address the
jurisdictional domestic violence findings because they were the
basis for the dispositional order removing J.H. from his custody.
4
We decline to reach the merits of Father’s jurisdictional
challenge because we can provide him no effective relief. While
this appeal was pending, the trial court returned J.H. to Father’s
care, which mooted the underlying dispositional order. This court
then requested supplemental briefing to address whether the
entire appeal was moot. Father did not file a supplemental brief.
As Father regained custody of J.H. on April 6, 2023, we cannot
afford him any relief. His appeal is therefore moot.
DISPOSITION
Father’s appeal is dismissed as moot.
VIRAMONTES, J.
We concur:
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
WILEY, J.
5