In re A.L. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 2016 No. B261522Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders because the father's challenges were rendered moot by the child's return to parental custody and the father's failure to challenge all bases for the court's jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether the father's challenges to the jurisdictional and dispositional orders are moot following the child's return to parental custody.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to review a jurisdictional finding when the parent does not challenge all bases for dependency.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Due to this recent development, we conclude that all of father’s challenges are no longer justiciable, and therefore affirm.”

“When, pending an appeal, without fault of the respondent, an event occurs which renders it impossible for this court, if it decides the case in favor of appellant, to grant any effectual relief, the appeal becomes moot.”

“When a child has been adjudicated dependent on multiple bases, and a parent challenges some, but not all, of the bases, the parent’s appeal presents no genuine challenge to the court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the child.”

Filed 3/3/16 In re A.L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.L., A Person Coming Under the B261522 Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. DK06627) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

A.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steven Klaiff, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

Adrian L. (father) appeals from part of the order adjudicating his son, A.L., a dependent of the court, and from part of the dispositional order. A.L. was declared dependent on several bases pertaining to the conduct of both mother and father. Father challenges only the jurisdictional finding that A.L. was dependent due to a risk of harm arising from father’s unresolved history of methamphetamine abuse. After the jurisdictional finding, A.L. was placed in the custody of a relative. Father argues that because he had planned for A.L. to be placed with that relative, it was unnecessary to remove A.L. from his legal custody. He also challenges the court’s dispositional order that his visitation with A.L be monitored. While this appeal was pending, A.L. was returned to the home of both of his parents. Due to this recent development, we conclude that all of father’s challenges are no longer justiciable, and therefore affirm.

In re A.L. CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

FLIER, J.

GRIMES, J.

AI Brief