12 Cal.App.5th 633
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- David B., nearly 18 when a dependency petition under Welfare & Institutions Code §300 was filed, is a wheelchair-bound diabetic with prior gunshot injuries and needs medical assistance; he had been living in a youth homeless shelter.
- Petition alleged abandonment by his mother and that he was left without provision for support (§300(g)); detention and jurisdiction hearings were set before his 18th birthday.
- Bureau investigated, located relatives who gave mixed information, and discovered facts undermining the petition’s abandonment theory; Bureau recommended dismissal prior to the contested hearing.
- At the jurisdiction hearing the juvenile court found insufficient evidence under §300 (subds. (g) and (b)) and dismissed the petition; the court did not reach disposition or declare David a dependent.
- David appealed the dismissal; by the time of appellate briefing and argument he had turned 18, and the Bureau argued the appeal was moot because a juvenile court cannot initiate dependency jurisdiction over an adult.
- The Court of Appeal agreed the appeal was moot because it could not grant effective relief (it could not order the juvenile court to declare dependency for someone now over 18) and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because David is over 18 | David: Court can declare him a dependent as of the original hearing date or otherwise provide relief despite his current age | Bureau: Appeal is moot; juvenile court cannot initiate dependency jurisdiction over someone >18; no effective relief possible | Held: Appeal is moot; court cannot grant effective relief because juvenile court may not initiate dependency jurisdiction for persons over 18 |
| Whether juvenile court may initiate dependency jurisdiction after a minor turns 18 when petition filed before 18 | David: (implicitly) procedural errors should be reviewable and remediable | Bureau: Jurisdiction must be assumed before age 18; post-18 initiation is barred by statutory scheme | Held: Juvenile jurisdiction to initiate must occur before 18; statutory retention to age 21 is derivative of jurisdiction assumed while the person was a minor |
| Whether appellate court can order nunc pro tunc relief or use CCP provisions to retroactively make a person a dependent | David/amicus: Appellate/nunc pro tunc powers or CCP remedies permit relief restoring status as of hearing | Bureau: CCP remedies and nunc pro tunc cannot be used to change substantive adjudication or "make someone 17 again" | Held: Nunc pro tunc and CCP remedies do not permit substituting a new adjudication or retroactively making a person a minor; those doctrines don’t allow the relief sought |
| Whether discretionary exceptions to mootness warrant reaching the merits | David/amicus: Issue raises broader public-interest concerns about homeless youth and likely recurrence | Bureau: Case is fact-specific and does not present an issue appropriate for discretionary review | Held: Court declines to exercise discretion; factual, case-specific substantial-evidence challenge does not meet exceptions for public-importance or recurring-evading-review doctrines |
Key Cases Cited
- Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, 67 Cal.2d 536 (discussion of mootness and justiciability)
- In re Gloria J., 188 Cal.App.3d 835 (juvenile court may not acquire initial dependency jurisdiction after minor turns 18)
- In re K.L., 210 Cal.App.4th 632 (discussing nonminor dependency retention to age 21 once jurisdiction was properly assumed before 18)
- In re N.S., 245 Cal.App.4th 53 (framework for mootness in dependency appeals; discretionary exceptions)
- In re Ruth M., 229 Cal.App.3d 475 (appeals not necessarily moot when dependency jurisdiction had been assumed before 18; appellate review may affect rights as of the time of the order)