In re A.J. CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Jul 25, 2025 No. B341241Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the mother's appeal of jurisdictional and dispositional orders as moot because the juvenile court had already terminated jurisdiction and awarded the mother custody of the children. The court further declined to exercise its discretion to reach the merits of the appeal, noting that the mother's prior dependency history and the children's safety interests did not warrant review.

Issues

Whether the mother's appeal of jurisdictional and dispositional orders is moot following the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction.
Whether the appellate court should exercise its discretion to review the merits of a moot appeal regarding jurisdictional findings.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude her claims are moot and also decline to exercise our discretion to consider them. We therefore dismiss the appeal.”

“Because the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction, mother’s arguments are moot.”

“For all these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the merits of mother’s appeal and dismiss the appeal.”

Filed 7/25/25 In re A.J. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.J. et al., Persons B341241 Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP04085)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

J.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Syna N. Dennis, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

John M. Kennedy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 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. ____________________

Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. She contends the court erred in sustaining allegations she failed to protect her children and requiring her to attend therapy and parenting classes. We conclude her claims are moot and also decline to exercise our discretion to consider them. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND Mother has two children—A.J. (born in 2021) and A.L. (born in 2022). A.J. and A.L. have different fathers. During the current dependency proceedings, the children remained in mother’s custody.

1. First dependency proceeding The first dependency proceeding commenced after a doctor reported A.J. had two posterior rib fractures “highly probably” caused by physical abuse. The fractures occurred in July 2021 after mother and A.J.’s father struggled over A.J. with each trying to take A.J. away from the other. In April 2022, the juvenile court sustained allegations A.J. suffered two posterior rib fractures consistent with inflicted trauma, which fractures were the product of mother’s and A.J.’s father’s “deliberate, unreasonable, and neglectful acts . . . .” Specifically, the court sustained allegations mother and father

In re A.J. CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BENDIX, J.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

WEINGART, J.

AI Brief