In re G.D. CA2/5
Filed 8/16/22 In re G.D. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 G.D. et al., Persons Coming B314503 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 19CCJP01722E-G)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
E.D.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Dismissed. Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over siblings Jan.D., Jo.D., and Jac.D. (collectively, Minors) after finding true allegations that Jan.D. and Jac.D. were experiencing mental health issues and needed counseling but E.D. (Father) failed to ensure they received that treatment.1 Father appeals the jurisdiction findings, the juvenile court’s disposition order requiring Father to undergo individual counseling, and the juvenile court’s denial of his request to terminate jurisdiction at the disposition hearing. While this appeal has been pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over Minors and granted Father sole legal and physical custody of the children. We consider whether the order terminating dependency jurisdiction renders this appeal moot.
I. BACKGROUND In early June 2021, when Jac.D. was interrupting his teacher and other students in his class at school, Jac.D.’s teacher said Jac.D. would get in a lot of trouble when he’s older if he continued to act up; the teacher suggested people might want to hit or fight Jac.D. In response, Jac.D. said, “What if I get a gun?” A few days later, Jac.D.’s class was meeting via Zoom and discussing motivational quotes. The teacher asked the students to come up with more examples, and Jac.D. said “murder comes to people.” The Department was called thereafter and began investigating.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)