In re Ne.L. CA1/1

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 2026 No. A172290Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the mother's appeal as moot because the case had already been transferred back to the desired jurisdiction, rendering any appellate decision on the transfer order incapable of providing effectual relief.

Issues

Whether an appeal challenging a juvenile court transfer order is rendered moot when the case is subsequently transferred back to the original jurisdiction.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Accordingly, Mother’s appeal is now moot, and we dismiss it.”

“A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court ‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief.”

Filed 2/19/26 In re Ne.L. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re Ne.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172290 v. (San Mateo County N.L., Super. Ct. Nos. 23-JD-0577, 23- Defendant and Appellant. JD-0578, 23-JD-0579)

This dependency proceeding originated in Santa Cruz County. After Mother moved to San Mateo County, the Santa Cruz court transferred the case to that jurisdiction. The San Mateo court immediately transferred the case back to Santa Cruz to allow that county to handle the 12-month review hearing. Mother appealed, challenging the validity of the San Mateo court transfer order. Following the review hearing, the Santa Cruz court again transferred the case to San Mateo. San Mateo accepted the transfer, and there the case has remained. Accordingly, Mother’s appeal is now moot, and we dismiss it.

BACKGROUND1 In February 2024, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Santa Cruz Department or Department) filed a fourth amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition for Ne.L., No.L., and Na.L. Two months later, the Santa Cruz juvenile court sustained the petition in large part and set a six-month review hearing date for September, which was subsequently continued to December. Before the December hearing, Mother moved to San Mateo County. At the hearing, the Santa Cruz court conducted the six-month review and also heard a motion to transfer the case to San Mateo. The court ordered six more months of reunification services, set a 12-month review hearing at the end of January 2025, and granted the motion to transfer to San Mateo County. The transfer-in hearing in San Mateo County was scheduled for January 6. Prior to the hearing date, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (San Mateo Agency or Agency) filed a motion to transfer the case back to Santa Cruz asserting it was in the best interests of the children for the case to remain in Santa Cruz because of the now fast-approaching 12-month review hearing date. The Agency explained that, assuming the San Mateo court held the 12-month review hearing on the statutory deadline of February 5, 2025, “the FR-12 Court Report and Case Plan would be due to [the] court on January 24, 2025,” giving the Agency only 18 days from the date of the transfer-in hearing to assign a social worker, make a recommendation, and create a case plan, which would involve interviewing

In re Ne.L. CA1/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief