In re N.H. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 2022 No. B312543Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and granted the parents joint legal and physical custody, rendering the challenge to the prior removal order incapable of providing effective relief.

Issues

Whether an appeal from a juvenile court's removal order is rendered moot by the subsequent termination of dependency jurisdiction and the issuance of a new custody order.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

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

“The sole basis for the appeal, the challenge to the order removing Nash from Father’s custody, has accordingly been rendered moot.”

Filed 7/21/22 In re N.H. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re N.H., A Person Coming Under B312543 the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 21CCJP00453C)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

R.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martha A. Matthews, Judge. Dismissed. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

V.H. (Mother) has three children: fifteen-year-old Nathan, fourteen-year-old N.H., and seven-year-old Nash.1 Nathan and N.H. lived with Mother, Nash, and Nash’s father, R.H. (Father).2 The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over all three children, finding they were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm because Father sexually and physically abused N.H. The court removed Nash from Father’s custody, and only that order (removing Nash) is challenged in this appeal. While the appeal has been pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over Nash with an order granting Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody. We consider whether the appeal is accordingly moot.

I. BACKGROUND In late December 2020, the Department received a referral alleging N.H. had been sexually abused by Father. N.H. disclosed Father sexually abused her from the time she was nine years old until she was twelve. The following month, the Department filed a six-count dependency petition alleging N.H., Nathan, and Nash were dependent children. Counts a-1, b-2, and j-2 alleged Father physically abused N.H. by striking her with a belt. Counts b-1, d- 1, and j-1 alleged Father sexually abused N.H. All six counts alleged Mother failed to protect the children by allowing Father to live in the home and have unlimited access to N.H. All six

In re N.H. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.

AI Brief