49 Cal.App.5th 886
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Feb 28, 2019: Juvenile court sustained a Welfare & Inst. Code §300 petition as to mother’s three children; mother accepted a case plan and children were not detained.
- Aug 28, 2019: At six‑month review court ordered mother to submit to on‑demand drug testing after reported methamphetamine use.
- Sept–Oct 2019: DCFS filed a §387 supplemental petition seeking detention; court denied detention on Oct 28 and kept testing orders.
- Nov 25–26, 2019: Court issued a removal warrant; DCFS removed the children from mother.
- Dec 2–3, 2019: DCFS filed a §342 subsequent petition alleging domestic violence; on Dec 3 the court found the children fell within §300, ordered removal, and set a jurisdictional hearing; mother appealed the Dec 3 detention order.
- Post‑appeal: DCFS filed a first amended §342 petition adding drug‑use allegations; the court later dismissed the original §342 petition but ordered the children remain detained; jurisdictional/dispositional proceedings on the amended petition were pending.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a detention order entered on a §342 subsequent petition before disposition is appealable | Mother: The detention order is appealable because it was entered after the original §300 disposition | DCFS: The detention/jurisdictional order on a §342 petition is interlocutory and nonappealable; appeal must await disposition on the subsequent petition | Held: Interlocutory and nonappealable; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the appeal is moot because DCFS amended the §342 petition after the appeal was filed | Mother: Not argued as primary ground for appeal | DCFS: The amended petition and subsequent orders render the original appeal moot | Held: Court did not decide mootness because it disposed of the appeal on nonappealability grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Javier G., 130 Cal. App. 4th 1195 (supplemental/jurisdictional findings before disposition are interlocutory and nonappealable)
- In re Joel T., 70 Cal. App. 4th 263 (after a §342 petition is filed, court must hold jurisdictional and dispositional hearings)
- In re A.B., 225 Cal. App. 4th 1358 (procedures for subsequent petitions mirror those for original petitions)
- In re Carlos T., 174 Cal. App. 4th 795 (a subsequent petition is filed after the child has already been declared dependent)
- In re N.S., 245 Cal. App. 4th 53 (courts may consider post‑appeal evidence when deciding whether to dismiss an appeal)