In Re Jesse C.

California Court of Appeal Oct 11, 1989 No. H005209Published

Before: Capaccioli

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an appeal from a juvenile dependency dispositional order is moot when the appellant's parental rights have been subsequently terminated in a separate proceeding that does not depend on the challenged dependency findings.

Issues

Whether an appeal from a juvenile dependency order is rendered moot by a subsequent judgment terminating parental rights under Civil Code section 232, subdivision (a)(6).

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Termination of parental rights under subdivision (a)(6), unlike (a)(7), does not depend on procedures undertaken during a child's dependency, but can be accomplished independently of those earlier events.”

215 Cal.App.3d 1384 (1989) 263 Cal. Rptr. 811 In re JESSE C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

ANTONIO R., SR., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. H005209. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.

October 11, 1989. [1386] COUNSEL

James W. Haworth and Heather Hyde for Defendant and Appellant.

Steven M. Woodside, County Counsel, and L. Michael Clark, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CAPACCIOLI, Acting P.J.

Antonio R. (father) appeals from a dispositional order of the juvenile court placing his son, Jesse C., in foster care (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (a)) and denying reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2). He contends 1) there was insufficient evidence to support the order, and 2) the trial court committed reversible error by combining the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, contrary to section 358, subdivision (c). The Santa Clara County Department of Social Services (DSS) responds that this appeal should be dismissed as moot in view of the intervening termination of appellant's parental rights. (Civ. Code, § 232, subd. (a)(6).)[1] We agree.

Procedural History

Jesse C. was taken into protective custody in January 1988 when he was one day old. A petition was thereafter filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), alleging that the parents had a history of "extreme family conflict" resulting in physical altercations and frequent separations, on one occasion resulting in appellant's arrest for domestic violence. The petition further alleged that the parents were unable to provide actual care and supervision of the minor or provide alternate care arrangements for him.

On June 15, 1988, DSS filed an amended petition which included an additional allegation, based on two separate psychological evaluations, that neither parent had the "emotional or psychological capacity to meet the psychological needs of said minor." Both evaluations concluded that appellant had serious emotional problems that prevented him from being able to parent his children adequately. The psychologists also agreed that it was "very unlikely" appellant could benefit from reunification services.

In Re Jesse C.

AI Brief

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief