In re D.P., 522 P.3d 645

Background

In 2019, infant D.P. was found to have a healing rib fracture on chest X‑ray; parents could not provide an explanation.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition for D.P. and his older sister B.P.; most counts as to B.P. were dismissed.
The juvenile court sustained a modified Welfare & Institutions Code § 300(b)(1) count as to D.P., relying on the prima facie presumption in § 355.1 based on the rib fracture; the court struck allegations of deliberate/unreasonable conduct and left D.P. in the parents’ care under informal supervision.
Parents appealed the jurisdictional finding; while the appeal was pending they complied with the case plan and the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, reasoning the parents failed to show a specific legal or practical consequence from the jurisdictional finding; one justice dissented.
The Supreme Court granted review, held the appeal moot (Father failed to show a redressable consequence), but reversed the Court of Appeal’s rigid rule about discretionary review and remanded for reconsideration of whether to exercise discretion to reach the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness after termination of jurisdiction	Appeal not moot because the jurisdictional finding is stigmatizing and could cause concrete harms (e.g., CACI listing)	Moot because reversal would not provide effective relief; no continuing orders or changed legal status	Appeal is moot: plaintiff did not show an ongoing, redressable legal harm from reversal
CACI listing/estoppel from challenging inclusion	Jurisdictional finding could result in DOJ Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) listing and then bar administrative challenge under Penal Code §11169(e)	No showing Father was or will be reported; allegation found was "general neglect," not necessarily reportable; Department policy and representations indicate it will not forward the report	Speculative; Father not shown to be listed or reportable; CACI theory too conjectural to avoid mootness
Standard for discretionary review of moot dependency appeals	Court should exercise discretion to reach merits despite mootness given potential consequences and recurring issues	Court of Appeal applied a stricter rule requiring demonstration of a specific legal or practical consequence to permit discretionary review	Court of Appeal erred: whether a case is moot depends on redressability; even if moot, appellate courts have discretion to hear the merits using flexible factors (recurrence, prejudice, stigma, why mootness arose, public interest)
Merits of §355.1 presumption and §300(b)(1) jurisdictional finding	Father: presumption misapplied; insufficient substantial evidence of present or future risk	Department: §355.1 presumption supported prima facie showing; juvenile court reasonably sustained modified count	Supreme Court did not reach merits; lower-court findings remain unreviewed for now due to mootness, but Court of Appeal must reconsider discretionary-review request on remand

Key Cases Cited

Consolidated etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers, 27 Cal.2d 859 (1946) (mootness requires inability of court to grant effective relief)
In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal.4th 398 (1994) (dismissal for mootness operates like an affirmance of the underlying order)
In re N.S., 245 Cal.App.4th 53 (2016) (dependency‑appeal mootness hinges on whether appellate reversal can provide effective relief)
In re Daisy H., 192 Cal.App.4th 713 (2011) (held speculative future harm could avoid mootness — disapproved here)
In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2011) (case is not moot only if jurisdictional finding causes legal or practical consequences redressable on appeal)
In re D.P., 225 Cal.App.4th 898 (2014) (discussion of §355.1 presumption shifting burden to parents)
In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (2012) (identified factors courts may consider in exercising discretion to review moot dependency appeals)
In re Anna S., 180 Cal.App.4th 1489 (2010) (case‑by‑case approach to mootness in dependency matters)
In re James F., 42 Cal.4th 901 (2008) (dependency proceedings focus on current parental fitness and changing circumstances)