Contra Costa Cnty. Children & Family Servs. Bureau v. David B. (In re David B.)
12 Cal. App. 5th 633
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- David B., nearly 18 when a dependency petition (§ 300) was filed alleging abandonment and lack of support, is a wheelchair-bound diabetic who had been living in a youth homeless shelter and hospitalized for medical complications.
- The Bureau filed the petition and detained him pending placement; jurisdiction and disposition hearings were set before his 18th birthday.
- During investigation the Bureau contacted relatives and ultimately concluded its initial allegations were unsupported and recommended dismissal; family contacts suggested his mother was alive and may have been willing to help.
- At the October 14, 2015 hearing the juvenile court admitted the Bureau’s reports, denied telephonic testimony from David B., heard his statement, and dismissed the petition for lack of evidence that he was abandoned or otherwise described by § 300.
- David B. appealed; by the time of briefing and decision he was over 18, and the Bureau argued the appeal was moot because a juvenile court cannot initiate dependency jurisdiction for persons over 18.
- The Court of Appeal concluded it could not provide effective relief (it cannot declare someone under 18 or order initiation of jurisdiction over an adult) and dismissed the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because David B. is now over 18 | David B.: the juvenile court erred in dismissing the petition and should be declared a dependent as of the jurisdictional hearing date | Bureau: juvenile court may not initiate dependency jurisdiction for persons over 18, so any reversal would provide no effective relief | Appeal is moot; court cannot grant effective relief because jurisdiction cannot be initiated after age 18 |
| Whether juvenile court may initiate dependency jurisdiction for someone over 18 | David B.: statutory language and remedial principles allow appellate relief (argues court could declare dependency retroactively) | Bureau: statutory scheme permits only retention/continuation/resumption of jurisdiction for nonminors; initiation must occur before 18 | Court held initiation must occur before 18; statutory scheme makes nonminor dependency derivative of jurisdiction assumed prior to 18 |
| Whether appellate remedies (e.g., nunc pro tunc, CCP §908/923) allow restoration of dependency status retroactively | David B./amicus: appellate or nunc pro tunc relief can restore him to dependency as of the original hearing | Bureau: those remedies cannot make a person under 18 or substitute for jurisdictional prerequisites | Court rejected retroactive remedies and nunc pro tunc theory as insufficient to grant effective relief |
| Whether a discretionary exception to mootness compels review (public importance / recurring issue) | Amicus: homelessness labels ("runaway") reflect systemic bias; issue has broader public importance | Bureau: this is a factbound substantial-evidence dispute; deciding merits would not provide useful precedent | Court declined to exercise discretion; factual nature and inability to affect David B.'s status made the mootness exceptions inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gloria J., 188 Cal.App.3d 835 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (juvenile court cannot acquire initial dependency jurisdiction after minor turns 18)
- In re K.L., 210 Cal.App.4th 632 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory scheme allows retention of jurisdiction to age 21 but does not permit initiation after 18)
- In re D.R., 155 Cal.App.4th 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (juvenile court may retain, reinstate, or continue jurisdiction in certain post-majority circumstances but cannot initiate initial jurisdiction over an adult)
- Ruth M. v. Superior Court (In re Ruth M.), 229 Cal.App.3d 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (appellate review of orders should be as of the time they were made; appeal is not moot where court had assumed jurisdiction before the minor turned 18)
- In re William M., 3 Cal.3d 16 (Cal. 1970) (discretionary mootness exception: courts may decide issues of broad public importance likely to recur)
- In re N.S., 245 Cal.App.4th 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (mootness in dependency appeals turns on whether appellate court can provide effective relief; discretionary exceptions explained)