In re L.J. CA2/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/22/24 In re L.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.J., a Person Coming Under B336477
the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP03367A)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
R.R.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Dismissed.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Appellant L.J., Minor.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________
On October 3, 2023, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a juvenile dependency
petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivisions (b) and (d), on behalf of L.J. (daughter, born May
2006), alleging that R.R. (father), had sexually abused daughter.
At the January 11, 2024, jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court
amended count b-1 and dismissed count d-1 of the petition. One
month later, at the disposition hearing, the juvenile court
removed daughter from parental custody and placed her under
DCFS supervision for suitable placement. Father was ordered to
complete a variety of programs, including sex abuse counseling
for perpetrators and individual counseling to address case issues,
including sexual abuse.
On April 4, 2024, daughter filed a notice of appeal. On
April 8, 2024, DCFS filed a notice of appeal. They argue that the
juvenile court erred in dismissing count d-1 and amending count
b-1 of the dependency petition.
While this appeal was pending, daughter turned 18 years
old. “When a minor turns 18, the minor is no longer subject to
juvenile court jurisdiction, subject to some exceptions not
2
applicable here. [Citations.] Generally, termination of juvenile
court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the
dependency proceedings moot. [Citation.]” (In re Emily L. (2021)
73 Cal.App.5th 1, 13; see also In re David B. (2017)
12 Cal.App.5th 633, 650, overruled in part on other grounds in In
re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283.) It follows that this appeal
has become moot.
DCFS and daughter do not seem to dispute that the appeal
has become moot. Rather, they ask that we exercise our
discretion to reach the merits of their appeal. After all, “[e]ven
when a case is moot, courts may exercise their ‘inherent
discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute. [Citation.]” (In re
D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.)1 We decline to do so.
“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.]” (In re D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 276.) “This rule applies in the dependency
context. [Citation.] A reviewing court must ‘“decide on a case-by-
case basis whether subsequent events in a juvenile dependency
matter make a case moot and whether [its] decision would affect
the outcome in a subsequent proceeding.”’ [Citation.]” (In re
D.P., supra, at p. 277.)
1 We note that our Supreme Court discussed discretion to
consider a moot appeal brought by a parent in the dependency
context. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 283–287.) Nothing
in In re D.P. suggests that its holding should be extended to the
circumstances presented in this case.
3
While father’s conduct here may have been abhorrent, it
does not present “‘an issue of broad public interest that is likely
to recur.’” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) Likewise,
assuming without deciding that the juvenile court erred in its
interpretation of sexual abuse, given that daughter is no longer a
minor, we cannot offer the parties any effective relief. (Id. at
p. 277.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
____________________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST
We concur:
_______________________, P. J.
LUI
________________________, J.
CHAVEZ
4