In re A.J. CA3

Filed 11/21/25 In re A.J. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

In re A.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C103481 Law.

YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. JV2023201, SERVICES AGENCY, JV2023202)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.J. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

The Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) appeals from the juvenile court’s order extending the reunification services provided to D.L., mother of the minors, to the 24-month review hearing and accompanying oral finding that the Agency

1

did not provide reasonable reunification services.1 (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, 395.)2 The Agency contends the juvenile court’s finding is not supported by the record. Subsequent to the filing of the Agency’s opening brief on appeal, and after provision of the additional five months of reunification services, the juvenile court held the 24-month review hearing. Upon the recommendation of the Agency, the court extended mother’s reunification services an additional six months pursuant to section 352, with an interim review hearing to be held in three months.3 We agree with mother (and father, who joins in mother’s argument) that these subsequent events render the Agency’s appeal moot, and the Agency has not shown that this court can provide it with effective relief, as we next explain. “It is well settled that an appellate court will decide only actual controversies. Consistent therewith, it has been said that an action which originally was based upon a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if the questions raised therein have become moot by subsequent acts or events.” (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) A case is not moot where a court can provide the appellant with

1 As we discuss, post, the written findings after hearing (form JV-440) contain a checked box concluding that the Agency did, in fact, provide reasonable services. But the oral findings from the same hearing appear to contradict that written finding. No party cites to the JV-440 in their briefing, let alone discusses the relevant finding contained therein and the import, if any, of the discrepancy. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.