California Court of Appeal Feb 13, 2024 No. E081299Unpublished
Filed 2/13/24 In re Kenneth S. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re KENNETH S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, E081299
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. J293009, J293010,) J293011) N.A. et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents;
KENNETH S. et al., Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.
Pace, Judge. Dismissed.
Marisa L.D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellants
Kenneth S. et al.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Tracy M. De Soto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Respondent, Robert S.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Respondent, N.A.
The juvenile court took jurisdiction over Kenneth S. after the one-month-old infant
suffered a fractured femur while in the care of his parents, N.A. (Mother) and Robert S.
(Father). The court also took jurisdiction over Kenneth’s half-sisters, T.B. and Trinity B.
This appeal is moot. Even if the juvenile court erred by finding not true the
allegations of severe physical abuse and ordering reunification services for Mother, a
reversal of the jurisdictional finding and dispositional orders would not affect the
outcome of the proceedings. The juvenile court’s subsequent orders returned the children
1 We granted Mother’s request for judicial notice of the July 2023 minute orders and invited the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding mootness. Mother filed a second request for judicial notice on January 29, 2024, and Father joined in that request. We grant the second request and take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s January 2024 minute orders terminating jurisdiction, which are attached to the second request as Exhibit A.
5
to both parents and terminated jurisdiction, superseding the challenged findings and
orders. Mother has reunified with the children, Father maintained custody of Kenneth,
and the court found that the conditions justifying the initial assumption of jurisdiction no
longer exist. In light of the subsequent orders and incorporated findings, it is impossible
for us to grant the children any effective relief.
The children and CFS nevertheless urge us to reach the merits of the appeal. They
contend that the court misinterpreted subdivision (e) of section 300 and the relevant
bypass provision (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6)), issues that are of broad public interest and likely
to recur. We are not persuaded. First, there is no reason to believe that the claimed
misinterpretations of the statutes are recurring issues in the juvenile courts, as opposed to
one-off erroneous interpretations. (See Renee S. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th
187, 192 [exercising discretion to reach a moot issue because the record demonstrated
that the challenged practice was widespread in the county’s juvenile courts].) Second,
assuming that the claimed misinterpretations are likely to recur, there is no showing that
the issues are likely to evade review in the future. (Delta Stewardship Council Cases
(2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1054 [declining to decide moot issues when no party
demonstrated that the issues were likely to recur and no party contended that the issues
would evade review].) Countless published decisions involve review of juvenile courts’
jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. We consequently have no reason to
doubt that if the claimed errors recur, then the appellate courts will be able to address
them in a case that is not moot.
6
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the juvenile court had returned the children to the parents' custody and terminated jurisdiction, rendering any potential appellate relief ineffective.
Issues
Whether the appeal is moot following the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction and the return of the children to parental custody.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to reach the merits of a moot appeal involving alleged misinterpretations of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (e).
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In light of those events, we conclude that the appeal is moot. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.”
“In light of the subsequent orders and incorporated findings, it is impossible for us to grant the children any effective relief.”