In re M.A. CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 2021 No. B308171Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings and disposition order, holding that the mother's appeal was moot due to the termination of dependency jurisdiction and that, in any event, substantial evidence supported the findings of physical abuse.

Issues

Whether the mother's appeal of the jurisdiction findings and disposition order is moot following the termination of dependency jurisdiction.
Whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that the mother inflicted nonaccidental physical harm on her child.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Generally, “an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot.””

“substantial evidence supports the court’s assertion of jurisdiction in this case.”

“The juvenile court’s disposition order and jurisdiction findings are affirmed.”

Filed 6/9/21 In re M.A. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

In re M.A., A Person Coming B308171 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF Super. Ct. No. CHILDREN AND FAMILY 20CCJP01992-A SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

T.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Annabelle G. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed. Katie Curtis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________________

INTRODUCTION

T.D. (mother) appeals from the court’s disposition order declaring her 11-year-old son a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). On appeal, mother contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s jurisdiction findings that she physically abused her son when she slapped him on the face with an open hand causing the area around his eye to bruise and swell. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 2020, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral alleging mother struck her then 10-year-old son M.A. on the face causing the area around his left eye to swell and bruise. M.A. reported to a school official that mother slapped him across his face with an open hand after he acted out because she wouldn’t allow him to have extra food. When interviewed by the Department, mother admitted she hit M.A. but claimed it was an accident that she struck his face. M.A. was acting out and becoming aggressive, so mother tried to spank his buttocks. But because he “was moving around so much … she accidentally hit [him] in the face.” Mother expressed remorse for hitting M.A. and told the Department she would no longer use physical discipline. M.A.’s father, Charles A. (father), didn’t live with the family and wasn’t around when mother struck the child. Father

In re M.A. CA2/3

AI Brief

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

AI Brief