In re J.R. CA2/1, B312290

Father (Johnny R.) had prior dependency findings: in 2018 the juvenile court sustained a §300(b) count for Father’s methamphetamine use and removed five-year-old J.R. from his care; Father later received services and visitation.
J.R. was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability and eligible for Regional Center services in January 2019.
In November 2020 Mother reported a one-and-one-half-inch linear bruise on J.R.’s right leg; J.R. told a medical examiner and police Father hit him with a belt (and a shoe) after J.R. refused to give back a phone/iPad.
DCFS investigated; multiple family members and siblings reported consistent statements by J.R.; Father denied hitting J.R., suggested the bruise could be from a fall or that J.R. was coached, and acknowledged difficulty managing J.R.’s behaviors.
DCFS filed a subsequent §342 petition alleging Father physically abused J.R. (counts a-1 and b-1). The juvenile court sustained those counts by a preponderance of the evidence and ordered services; Father appealed. While the appeal was pending, dependency jurisdiction was later terminated, but the appellate court exercised discretion to resolve the appeal because the findings could prejudice future proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for §300(a)/(b) jurisdiction based on alleged physical abuse	DCFS: J.R.’s consistent statements to medical personnel, police, siblings, and mother, plus the bruise and Father’s unresolved behavior-management issues, support a finding of current risk under §300(a)/(b).	Father: Evidence insufficient that J.R. faced a current risk at adjudication because the court left J.R. with Father, J.R. appeared happy in Father’s care, and Father denied inflicting the injury (it could be accidental or coached).	Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports jurisdiction: the manner of injury and Father’s ongoing difficulty managing the same behavior show a current risk of future serious harm.
Mootness / ability to review appeal after termination of dependency	DCFS implicitly: appellate review warranted because the abuse finding could prejudice Father in later family-law or dependency proceedings.	Father: did not seek dismissal; asked court not to dismiss as moot (but appeal would otherwise be potentially moot after termination).	Court exercised discretion to decide the otherwise moot appeal because the challenged abuse finding could affect future proceedings.

In re C.C., 172 Cal.App.4th 1481 (2009) (appeal from dependency order may not be dismissed as moot if error could prejudice later proceedings).
In re S.G., 71 Cal.App.5th 654 (2021) (dependency appeal mootness principles and limitations).
In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (1991) (jurisdiction focuses on risk at time of hearing; past conduct probative of current conditions).
In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (2017) (clarifying standards related to juvenile dependency adjudications).
In re Yolanda L., 7 Cal.App.5th 987 (2017) (juvenile court need not wait for serious injury when evidence shows substantial risk of future harm).
In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (2009) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in dependency jurisdictional findings).