In Re Dani R.

California Court of Appeal May 23, 2001 No. G027802Published

Before: Rylaarsdam

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the parents' appeal as moot because their subsequent stipulation to findings of detriment and progress at a six-month review hearing, combined with the mother's receipt of reunification services, rendered the appeal's issues non-justiciable.

Issues

Whether the parents' appeal of jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders is moot following their stipulation to findings of detriment at a six-month review hearing.
Whether the mother's appeal regarding the denial of reunification services is moot after the juvenile court granted her a petition for such services.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.”

“These subsequent acts directly contradict, and therefore moot, the issues raised in father's appeal.”

“The sole issue raised by mother on appeal is also undeniably moot, because she has since been offered reunification services.”

106 Cal.Rptr.2d 926 (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402 In re DANI R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Orange County Social Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Dan R. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. G027802. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

May 23, 2001. Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Dan R.

[927] Marsha Faith Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Irvine, for Defendant and Appellant Geraldine W.

Laurence M. Watson, County Counsel, and Julie J. Farber, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael D. Randall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Los Angeles, for the Minor.

OPINION

RYLAARSDAM, J.

Dan R. and Geraldine W., father and mother of 19-month-old Dani, appeal from a judgment declaring their son a dependent of the court and removing him from their parental custody. Father contends the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and order removing Dani from his physical custody are not supported by substantial evidence. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) In addition, he argues the court abused its discretion by granting him only monitored visitation. Mother joins in the issues raised by father and, in addition, contends the juvenile court erroneously denied her reunification services.

Minor's counsel informed us the juvenile court subsequently granted mother's section 388 petition for reunification services. On our own motion, we requested letter briefs addressing the issue of mootness. Respondent argues mother's appeal is moot and the remaining issues on appeal should also be dismissed as moot based on the parents' stipulation to various findings at the six-month review hearing. We agree and therefore dismiss.

In Re Dani R.

AI Brief

OPINION

RYLAARSDAM, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief