In re T.A. CA2/8

Filed 7/16/24 In re T.A. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 T.A., et al., Persons Coming B325535 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP01880A, B) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRAVIS A., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed as moot. Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

Travis A., father of T.A. and C.A. (Father), challenges the juvenile court’s findings and order on a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 387 petition for a more restrictive placement. We dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2021, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging T.A. and C.A. were subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (c), due to parental emotional abuse and Father’s substance abuse. In a negotiated disposition, Father pleaded no contest to the section 300, subdivision (b)(1) allegations that he emotionally abused the children and endangered them by his marijuana abuse. The court declared the children dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). Initially, the juvenile court ordered the children home of parents. However, in May 2022, the children were removed from Father and a section 387 supplemental petition for a more restrictive placement was filed due to Father’s continued verbal aggression against the children. After a hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegation in the supplemental petition, found the previous disposition had been ineffective in protecting the children, and modified the children’s placement to home of mother, Nicole P. (Mother), with monitored visitation for Father. Father appeals.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2

DISCUSSION Father appeals the juvenile court’s order at the hearing on the section 387 petition placing the children with their mother and awarding him monitored visits. Father argues insufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that the previous dispositional orders were ineffective in protecting the children and its findings justifying removal. However, more recently, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction with an exit order awarding sole physical custody to Mother, joint legal custody to both parents, and monitored visits for Father.2 There is no indication that Father, or any other party, appealed from the exit order, and the time to do so has expired. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1).) DCFS contends this renders the appeal moot, and we agree. Father argues the appeal is not moot based on his belief that if we were to reverse the findings and orders on the petition for a more restrictive placement, the matter “would be remanded to the family court with instructions to change the Custody Order so that it grants both [parents] joint physical and legal custody” of the children. This is not the case. Reversing the findings and orders on the section 387 petition “could not deliver the desired relief—namely, a change in custody and/or visitation. Even after