In re J.Y. CA4/1

Filed 10/6/21 In re J.Y. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re J.Y. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078859 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J520193) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.F. et al.

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Appeals dismissed. Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.F. Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.Y.Y. Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

T.F. (Mother) and minor J.Y.Y. (together appellants) appeal from orders made at a contested hearing held on April 16, 2021, arguing that the record does not show that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding Mother’s Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The Agency responded to these appeals by filing a request for judicial notice of postjudgment rulings by the juvenile court dated September 9, 2021 that ordered J.Y.Y. and H.Y. returned to the care of J.Y. (Father). We previously granted the Agency’s request for judicial notice filed August 18, 2021 establishing that six of the eight children had been returned to Father’s care on July 28, 2021. The Agency seeks to dismiss these appeals arguing that the transition of J.Y.Y. and H.Y. to Father’s care rendered the appeals regarding the adequacy of the ICWA inquiry moot because all the children are now in parental custody. If we deny its dismissal motion, the Agency concedes that further ICWA inquiry is needed. Mother opposes the request for judicial notice. Assuming we grant the Agency’s request for judicial notice, Mother contends that the appeals should not be dismissed as moot. Even if we find the appeals to be moot, Mother argues that the appeals should not be dismissed because they raise an important issue that is capable of repetition yet evading review. We grant the Agency’s request for judicial notice and its motion to dismiss the appeals. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676 [appellate courts routinely consider limited postjudgment evidence in connection with motions to dismiss].)