In re C.R. CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Nov 29, 2022 No. B317118Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the juvenile court had already reinstated the mother's visitation, and the mother failed to demonstrate that the prior suspension order would cause prejudice in future proceedings or that the appellate court could provide effective relief.

Issues

Whether an appeal of a temporary visitation suspension order is rendered moot by the subsequent reinstatement of visitation.
Whether a court can grant effective relief by ordering make-up visits when the issue was not raised in the juvenile court.
Whether a temporary visitation order will prejudice a parent in future dependency proceedings.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As discussed below, we reject mother’s arguments and conclude this appeal is moot.”

“An appeal may become moot where subsequent events, including orders by the juvenile court, render it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief.”

“In sum, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude this appeal has become moot due to the juvenile court’s reinstatement of mother’s visitation.”

Filed 11/29/22 In re C.R. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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 FOUR

In re C.R. et al., Persons Coming B317118 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 17CCJP02383

Plaintiff and Respondent,

V.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Dismissed. Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Peter A. Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

V.R. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s October 2021 orders1 temporarily suspending her visitation with her two children, C.R. and A.R. In so doing, mother acknowledges the court reinstated her visits in February 2022, while this appeal was pending. Nevertheless, she contends the February 2022 orders have not rendered this appeal moot because: (1) we can grant her effective relief by directing the juvenile court to order make-up visits for the period in which her visits were suspended; and (2) if allowed to stand, the October 2021 orders will prejudice her by infecting subsequent proceedings in this case. As discussed below, we reject mother’s arguments and conclude this appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Mother and F.V.2 (father) are the parents of C.R. and A.R. Mother also has four adult children, who reside in Washington. When this case arose in December 2017, C.R. was seven years old and A.R. was four years old. They lived in a house with mother and a few other adults, including their godmother. The parents had not been in contact for several years. Mother reported father was not involved in the children’s lives.

In re C.R. CA2/4

AI Brief

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

MANELLA, P.J.

WILLHITE, J.

AI Brief