In re Samantha C. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jun 13, 2024 No. B326494Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the mother's challenge to the jurisdictional findings was not justiciable because she failed to contest the alternative ground for jurisdiction, and her challenge to the removal order was moot due to the subsequent termination of dependency jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether the mother's challenge to the jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a) is justiciable when she does not challenge the finding under subdivision (b)(1).
Whether the mother's challenge to the removal order is moot following the juvenile court's termination of dependency jurisdiction and issuance of an exit order.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings is not justiciable, and her challenge to the removal order is moot.”

“Where, as here, dependency jurisdiction over a child rests on several grounds, jurisdiction is valid if any ground is valid.”

“A case becomes moot when subsequent events render it impossible for the court to grant any effective relief.”

Filed 6/13/24 In re Samantha C. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re SAMANTHA C. et al., B326494 Persons Coming Under the (Los Angeles County Super. Juvenile Court Law. Ct. Nos. 22CCJP04569A-E)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

LUCIA M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge. Affirmed.

Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jane Kwon, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** Lucia M. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s assertion of dependency jurisdiction over five of her children as well as the court’s order removing the children from her custody. Mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings is not justiciable, and her challenge to the removal order is moot. We accordingly affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The Family Mother has eight children—seven with Gerardo C. (ex- husband), and her youngest child with Albert H. (father). This case involves the five youngest children—namely, (1) Samantha C. (born July 2005), (2) Ruby C. (born January 2007), (3) Jessica C. (born January 2008), (4) Katelynn C. (born September 2011), and (5) Stephanie H. (born December 2013). II. Domestic Violence Incident In September 2022, father and mother started yelling at each other outside of a relative’s home. Father did not want mother to leave, so he disabled the battery in her car. When father started to become aggressive toward mother, Paola—one of mother’s now-adult children—interposed herself between father

In re Samantha C. CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

LUCIA M.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief