In re Itzel R. CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Jun 13, 2024 No. B332141Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the father's appeal of jurisdictional findings as moot because the juvenile court had already terminated dependency jurisdiction and granted the parents shared custody.

Issues

Whether an appeal of jurisdictional findings in a dependency case is moot when the juvenile court has terminated jurisdiction and issued a custody order.
Whether the appellate court should exercise its discretion to review moot jurisdictional findings.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree that this development prevents us from granting Father any effective relief and thus renders the appeal moot.”

“After considering this and the other factors set forth in In re D.P., we decline to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of Father’s moot appeal.”

Filed 6/13/24 In re Itzel R. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re ITZEL R., a Person Coming B332141 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP02205) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

DENNIS R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Brett Bianco, Judge. Dismissed. John M. Kennedy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. ___________________________

On August 30, 2023, appellant Dennis R. (Father) appealed a juvenile court order sustaining jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 regarding Father’s daughter, Itzel R. (born August 2022). Father argues that, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, substantial evidence did not support that the alleged domestic violence between himself and the children’s mother, B.R. (Mother),2 placed Itzel at sufficient risk to justify juvenile court jurisdiction under either section 300, subdivision (a) or section 300, subdivision (b)(1). Since Father filed his appeal, on February 28, 2024, the court issued an order terminating its jurisdiction over Itzel and a juvenile court custody order3 granting shared legal and physical custody of Itzel to Father and Mother.4 Neither parent appealed the court’s

In re Itzel R. CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

DENNIS R.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHANEY, J.

BENDIX, J.

AI Brief