In re Rashad D.
63 Cal.App.5th 156
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- 2017: Juvenile court sustained a section 300(b)(1) petition on behalf of infant Rashad, finding Mother had a multi‑year history of illicit drug use; child removed; reunification services provided; jurisdiction later terminated and Mother regained sole custody in 2019.
- Early 2020: Department received reports Mother had relapsed and had been absent from family; Department filed a new section 300(b)(1) petition alleging Mother’s six‑year history of illicit drug use and current abuse.
- Summer 2020: At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing the Department ultimately conceded there was no proof of current use; the court sustained an amended count alleging Mother’s history of drug use placed Rashad at substantial risk of serious physical harm, declared Rashad a dependent, released him to Mother under family maintenance, and set a three‑month review; Mother appealed the jurisdiction and disposition orders.
- November 4 & 10, 2020: At the three‑month review the juvenile court found supervision no longer required, terminated dependency jurisdiction, and entered a juvenile custody order awarding Mother sole physical custody and joint legal custody to Mother and Father with increased monitored visitation for Father; Mother did not appeal those termination/custody orders.
- Appeal posture: Mother challenges sufficiency of the evidence supporting jurisdiction (risk from Mother’s history and alleged red flags) and contends termination and the custody order do not moot her appeal because the sustained finding adversely affects her ongoing custody rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department/Respondent) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were the sustained jurisdictional findings (§300(b)(1)) supported by substantial evidence? | The amended finding—that Mother’s extended history of illicit drug use placed Rashad at substantial risk—was supported by history and family concerns. | Evidence of past abuse plus family reports and brief absences were insufficient to show a present substantial risk or leaning to relapse. | Court did not reach the merits: appeal dismissed as moot for lack of effective relief because Mother failed to appeal the termination/custody orders. |
| 2. Did termination of dependency jurisdiction moot Mother’s appeal of the earlier jurisdiction/disposition orders? | Termination generally moots earlier orders unless the sustained findings directly caused adverse, continuing custody/visitation consequences and effective relief is possible. | Termination did not moot the appeal because the juvenile custody order (joint legal custody and expanded visitation) was a continuing, adverse consequence traceable to the sustained jurisdictional finding. | Appeal dismissed: because Mother did not appeal the termination and custody orders, the court could not provide effective relief; termination rendered the appeal moot. |
| 3. Should the court exercise discretion to decide the otherwise moot appeal as an issue of recurring public interest? | N/A (court evaluates discretion). | Mother urged review because similar fact‑specific issues recur. | Court declined: the sufficiency question is highly fact‑specific and not an issue of broad continuing public importance warranting discretionary review. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.S., 245 Cal.App.4th 53 (2016) (appellate relief depends on whether effective relief remains possible after intervening events)
- In re J.P., 14 Cal.App.5th 616 (2017) (court reviewed disposition error and remanded to reconsider termination of jurisdiction when reunification error affected custody)
- In re C.C., 172 Cal.App.4th 1481 (2009) (termination of jurisdiction generally moots earlier dependency appeals; analysis is case‑by‑case)
- In re Joshua C., 24 Cal.App.4th 1544 (1994) (appeal not necessarily moot where custody orders were issued at disposition that directly affected parent)
- In re Michelle M., 8 Cal.App.4th 326 (1992) (dismissal where juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction and appellant failed to appeal termination)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (2004) (distinguishes lack of fundamental jurisdiction from acts in excess of jurisdiction)
- In re David B., 12 Cal.App.5th 633 (2017) (declined to exercise discretion to decide otherwise moot appeal on fact‑specific sufficiency issues)