Filed 8/25/26 In re Evelyn R. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has
not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re EVELYN R., a Person B347658
Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 25CCJP01440A)
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JASMINE V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Cristina Gutierrez Legaspi, Judge. Dismissed.
Leongah Wheeler, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
******
Jasmine V. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court
judgment declaring her daughter, Evelyn R., a dependent of the
court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1
The juvenile court declared Evelyn a dependent of the court
on July 8, 2025, based on mother and Joel R.’s (father) history of
violent altercations, father’s failure to comply with a criminal
protective order protecting mother and Evelyn from father, and a
finding that father’s violent conduct and mother’s failure to
protect Evelyn created a detrimental home environment that
placed Evelyn at risk of serious physical harm.2 Mother
challenges the jurisdictional finding that she failed to protect
Evelyn.
On January 6, 2026, while this appeal was pending, the
juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over Evelyn but stayed its
order pending receipt of a custody order granting the parents
joint legal and physical custody of the child.3
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Father is not a party to this appeal.
3 The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services’ (DCFS) motion for judicial notice of
postjudgment evidence, filed concurrently with its respondent’s
brief in this matter, is hereby granted. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36
2
On January 9, 2026, upon receipt of the juvenile custody
order, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and signed and
filed the custody order granting the parents joint legal and
physical custody of Evelyn.
In light of these subsequent events, there is no effective
relief this court can provide mother. We therefore dismiss
mother’s appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior child welfare history
On September 19, 2022, Riverside County Department of
Public Social Services received a referral alleging the parents
emotionally abused Evelyn, and mother neglected Evelyn. On
September 18, 2022, mother contacted law enforcement asking
for assistance. Father was heavily inebriated and accused
mother of infidelity. During the argument, mother left the
apartment with their then-two-year-old daughter Evelyn.
Mother returned to the apartment after she realized she had
forgotten her wallet. After she put Evelyn down, she and father
again began arguing. Father pushed mother down, stood over
her and punched her several times on the back of the neck and
head. Father then took Evelyn out of the room. Mother followed,
and they again argued. Father pushed mother down and kicked
her on the head with a bare foot. Evelyn, who witnessed the
altercation, was not injured. Father was arrested. Mother
sustained visible swelling on the upper right side of her forehead
but refused an emergency protective order and prosecution.
Cal.4th 664, 676 [appellate court may consider postjudgment
evidence in the context of a motion to dismiss a juvenile
dependency appeal].)
3
Mother did not say if she was going to continue the relationship
with father or if she would allow him back into the home.
During the investigation the allegations were deemed
truthful. Father assaulted mother while under the influence of
alcohol in front of then-two-year-old Evelyn. The assault resulted
in bruising on mother’s eye and swelling in her head and in
father’s arrest. Father verbalized minimal insight into his
actions and enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous pending
completion of a domestic violence class. Mother took protective
action by relocating to a relative’s home with the child. Mother
agreed to be referred to services such as therapy and parenting
education. The situation appeared to have stabilized.
The allegation of neglect as to father was closed as
substantiated. The emotional abuse allegation as to father and
the neglect allegation as to mother were closed as inconclusive.
The emotional abuse allegation as to mother was closed as
unfounded.
Current referral and investigation
On April 20, 2025, DCFS received a referral alleging
mother neglected and father emotionally abused Evelyn. An
unknown person called 911 at 12:44 a.m. on April 20, 2025,
alleging a domestic violence incident had taken place at a nearby
apartment, and father “took off” with the child. Officers
responded to the residence. Father was outside with Evelyn, who
was then five years old. Evelyn was “crying as if she was scared.”
Father was under the influence of alcohol and very emotional.
Officers convinced father to relinquish the child, whom they then
took to mother. Mother was described as “hysterical.”
Mother reported father had picked her up at 10:00 p.m.,
and she noted he had been drinking. When they came home, she
4
observed a bottle of tequila on the counter. The couple’s
argument about father’s drinking escalated, and father punched
mother three times in the mouth. There was a laceration on the
inside of mother’s mouth along with redness and swelling.
Paramedics wanted to transport mother to the hospital due to her
accelerated heart rate, but she refused.
Mother said Evelyn was asleep at the time of the incident.
Father then went in and woke up Evelyn because he planned to
take her away.
An active restraining order that issued on April 3, 2023, in
a Palm Springs case was due to expire on April 3, 2026. The
restraining order was related to domestic violence, and mother
and Evelyn were the protected parties. In spite of the restraining
order, mother acknowledged she and father had been living
together for the preceding two and one-half years.
Father was extremely emotional and smelled of alcohol.
His eyes were red and watery, and his speech was impaired. He
was arrested, and a social worker interviewed father at the
Montebello police station. Father appeared coherent and
reported having no knowledge of the 2023 restraining order. He
confirmed there was a criminal case due to a domestic violence
incident in 2022 but was unaware of the restraining order.
Father confirmed he had been living with mother for two and a
half years.
Father reported he was arrested due to allegations of
domestic violence with mother. On the night of the incident,
father and Evelyn traveled by car to pick up mother from work in
Pasadena. Father disclosed he does not have a valid driver’s
license; however, he admitted to transporting the child in the
vehicle. Father denied being under the influence of alcohol on his
5
way to pick up mother. When they returned home father opened
a new bottle of tequila. Father reported he drank five shots of
the alcohol and denied feeling intoxicated.
Father reported he and mother sat at the table, and mother
told him she did not want to renew their apartment lease. When
father asked why, he also asked if she was having an affair.
Mother did not answer the question and turned her face
whenever he repeated the question. Father reported they began
to yell and argue. When mother became hysterical and father
needed to calm her down, he slapped her on the face. Father
denied using a closed fist. Father reported mother ran out of the
apartment to the neighbor’s home. Father then took Evelyn
outside to wait for law enforcement to arrive. Father reported
Evelyn did not witness the incident; however, he believed she was
aware of what was going on because she was awake when he
walked into her room.
When the social worker arrived at the family home, no one
was home, so she called mother, who reported she was at work.
Mother said Evelyn was at school, and maternal grandmother
would pick her up from there. Mother said law enforcement told
her about the active restraining order but denied any prior
knowledge of it. Mother agreed to call law enforcement if the
restraining order was ever violated in the future.
During the social worker’s in-person interview, she
observed a contusion on mother’s right cheek. Mother confirmed
it was a result of the incident of domestic violence on April 20,
2025.
Regarding the 2023 restraining order, mother believed it
was only active for four months and confirmed she and father
separated for four months after the earlier incident of domestic
6
violence. The couple reconciled because father said he would
change and he wanted to be a family. Mother now planned to
move out of the family’s apartment and no longer wanted to be in
a relationship with father.
Father was granted a temporary release on April 22, 2025,
until the next criminal court hearing on May 6, 2025. Father was
released with an ankle monitor and instructed not to contact
mother and Evelyn, not to return home, and not to take the
vehicle from mother. Father reported he went to the family home
to pick up his belongings when mother was at work.
When the social worker went to the family home while
mother was in the process of packing her belongings, the social
worker observed father’s clothes to still be in the dresser.
On May 7, 2025, mother denied having any contact with
father.
Removal, section 300 petition and initial hearing
On May 14, 2025, the juvenile court granted DCFS’s
request for a removal warrant removing Evelyn from father’s
custody. Evelyn remained in mother’s custody.
On May 16, 2025, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on
behalf of Evelyn, alleging the parents had a history of engaging
in violent altercations and were abusers of marijuana and
alcohol.
At the June 2, 2025 initial hearing, the juvenile court
ordered Evelyn detained from father’s custody and released to
mother’s custody. The court ordered no contact between mother
and father and ordered them to stay 100 yards away from each
other. The matter was set for an adjudication hearing.
7
Further investigation
In a July 7, 2025 jurisdiction/disposition report, DCFS
reported father’s criminal history included an October 2013
arrest for possession of a controlled substance as well as the
September 2022 arrest for inflicting corporal injury on a domestic
cohabitant.
On April 22, 2025, criminal charges were filed against
father due to the domestic violence incident with mother. The
criminal court issued a protective order protecting mother and
Evelyn against father and a 100-yard stay-away order. Father
was released on his own recognizance with an electronic
monitoring program.
On May 29, 2025, a jury convicted father of misdemeanor
injury to a cohabitant and misdemeanor contempt of court for his
violation of the protective order. Father was scheduled to have a
probation and sentencing hearing on June 20, 2025.
Mother denied failing to protect Evelyn, stating she and
father separated for four months after the initial domestic
violence incident, but they resumed their relationship because
father said he had changed. Mother said father participated in
an online domestic violence program, but she did not know if it
was completed.
Mother saw father at the juvenile court detention hearing
and twice in May 2025 at the criminal courthouse. Father texted
her on June 12 and June 14, 2025, but she did not respond.
Mother did not want to resume her relationship with father.
Regarding father’s drug use, mother reported father has a
“marijuana problem,” saying he used marijuana daily, and there
were times he smoked marijuana and took care of Evelyn alone.
Mother reported she or maternal grandmother would take care of
8
Evelyn while father drank alcohol. However, if something
angered father while he was under the influence of alcohol, it
triggered arguments. Mother stated this occurred infrequently.
Mother denied father operated a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol. Father drank tequila when he had a bad
day, and he was under the influence of tequila during the
domestic violence incidents that occurred in September 2022 and
April 2025.
In a July 7, 2025 last minute information for the court, the
dependency investigator reported on June 20, 2025, father was
placed on summary probation for three years and ordered to obey
the protective order issued that day protecting mother from
father. The criminal protective order included an order not to
abuse, a no-contact order, and a 100-yard stay-away order with
an exception for peaceful contact for the safe exchange of Evelyn
and court-ordered visitation as stated in any family, juvenile, or
probate court order. The criminal protective order was scheduled
to expire on June 20, 2028.
The criminal court ordered father to enroll within 30 days
and to then successfully complete a 52-week domestic violence
program, perform 20 days of community labor, attend 26
Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings or Mela
Outpatient Treatment Program (six months minimum). A
progress hearing was set for September 22, 2025.
On June 11, 2025, father enrolled in a substance abuse
outpatient program through Mela Counseling Services. On
June 17, 2025, father enrolled in a domestic violence intervention
education program through Mela Counseling services.
9
Adjudication and disposition
At the July 7, 2025 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court
admitted DCFS’s reports into evidence and took judicial notice of
its prior findings and orders in this case.
Evelyn’s counsel asked the juvenile court to sustain the
domestic violence counts as written, arguing it was not the first
incident of domestic violence between the parents, father visibly
injured mother and grabbed Evelyn while under the influence of
alcohol. The responding officer observed Evelyn crying and
mother hysterical. Evelyn’s counsel added mother failed to
protect Evelyn because the parents had a history of domestic
violence, and mother had an active restraining order against
father at the time she reconciled with him.
Mother’s counsel argued the court should dismiss mother
from the section 300 petition, arguing mother was not aware the
criminal protective order did not expire until 2026. Mother had
recently separated from father, was no longer living with him,
and had been working with the police and DCFS.
The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition,
including the allegation that mother failed to protect Evelyn from
father. The court found the parents’ domestic violence was
ongoing and did not find credible mother’s statement she was
unaware of the 2023 criminal protective order. The juvenile
court specified, “This court is not persuaded that mother had no
knowledge of the [criminal protective order], and mother’s actions
in allowing the father to have unlimited and unmonitored access
to this child … places this child a[t] risk of harm, and mother
failed to protect.”
The juvenile court declared the child a dependent of the
court, ordered her removed from father’s custody and released to
10
mother’s custody. The court ordered mother to participate in a
26-week domestic violence support group for victims and ordered
father to participate in a 52-week domestic violence program.
The matter was set for a section 364 hearing on January 6, 2026.
Appeal
On July 17, 2025, mother filed a notice of appeal.
Postjudgment proceedings
On January 6, 2026, the juvenile court terminated
jurisdiction over Evelyn with a custody order granting the
parents joint legal and physical custody of Evelyn, which was
stayed until receipt of the juvenile custody order on January 9,
2026.
DISCUSSION
“A court is tasked with the duty ‘“to decide actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and
not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,
or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
matter in issue in the case before it.”’” (In re D.P. (2023) 14
Cal.5th 266, 276.) “A case becomes moot when events ‘“render[] it
impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of
plaintiff, to grant him any effect[ive] relief.”’” (Ibid.) “For relief
to be ‘effective,’ two requirements must be met. First, the
plaintiff must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm
must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome
the plaintiff seeks.” (Ibid.)
“As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court
jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the
dependency proceedings moot.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172
Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) This includes circumstances where a
11
parent has appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
findings and jurisdiction is later terminated with custody orders
and the parent has not appealed from those custody orders. (In
re Gael C. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 220, 225–226.) However,
mootness must be decided on a “‘case-by-case basis.’” (C.C.,
supra, at p. 1488.)
A court has the discretion to hear a moot appeal where (1)
the appeal presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely
to recur, (2) there may be a recurrence of the controversy between
the same parties, or (3) a material question remains for the trial
court’s determination. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.)
In the context of juvenile dependency matters, various other
circumstances may arise causing appellate courts to “exercise
their inherent discretion to decide certain challenges to juvenile
court jurisdictional findings, notwithstanding mootness.” (Id. at
p. 285.)
For example, appellate courts may consider challenges to
jurisdictional findings in moot juvenile dependency matters
where the challenged jurisdictional finding “‘could be prejudicial
to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future
dependency proceedings,’ or ‘“could have other consequences for
[the appellant] beyond jurisdiction.”’” (In re D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 285.) Discretionary review may also be appropriate
where the jurisdictional finding is “based on particularly
pernicious or stigmatizing conduct,” or where the case became
moot due to prompt compliance by the parents. (Id. at pp. 285–
286.)
Mother has declined to ask this court to exercise its
discretion to decide this moot appeal.
12
As jurisdiction has been terminated with mother’s custody
rights intact, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
CHAVEZ, J.
We concur:
LUI, P. J.
GOORVITCH, J.
13