In re D.P. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jul 14, 2023 No. B301135AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional order because the lower court's finding of a "possible" neglectful act amounted to mere speculation rather than substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the appellate court should exercise its discretion to review a moot dependency appeal.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we exercise our discretion to review Father’s appeal and hold that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdiction order.”

““Possible” evidence is not substantial evidence.”

“A finding of “a possible neglectful act” is antithetical to substantial evidence of that act.”

Filed 7/14/23 In re D.P. CA2/5 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.P., a Person Coming B301135 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP00973B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

T.P. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Barnes, Judge. Reversed.

Megan Turkat-Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.P. Landon Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Y.G. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

T.P. (Father) and Y.G. (Mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s order finding jurisdiction over their now four-year-old son D.P. (the child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)1 and order of a period of informal supervision by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department). On February 10, 2021, the panel majority dismissed the appeal as moot because the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the child during the pendency of the parents’ appeals.2 On May 26, 2021, the California Supreme Court granted Father’s petition for review. On January 19, 2023, the Supreme Court agreed Father’s appeal is moot but remanded for us to reconsider Father’s argument for discretionary review of the moot issue in light of the principles and factors set forth in its

In re D.P. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

I. INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II. BACKGROUND

III. DISCUSSION

V. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.

AI Brief