Filed 8/19/26 In re K.G. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
In re K.G., et al., Persons Coming B349130
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Ct. No. 25CCJP00838A-E)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
K.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, George A. Turner, Judge. Dismissed.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent
Department of Children and Family Services.
——————————
K.G. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s finding of
jurisdiction over her five children based on an incident of
domestic violence between mother and F.L. (father).1 Because
father pled no contest to the allegations in the Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300 petition,2 the juvenile court is
vested with jurisdiction over the children such that we cannot
provide mother with any meaningful relief and, for that reason,
the appeal is dismissed as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
I. Initial Investigation and Detention
A. The Reported Incident
On January 28, 2025, the Los Angeles Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a report of
domestic violence between mother and father that took place the
previous day. The argument concerned mother’s job as a content
creator with TikTok; it escalated to the point that mother threw a
plate of food at father and father responded by punching mother
1 F.L. is the father of K.G.’s three youngest children—H.L.
(born June 2016) and twins, M.L. and A.L. (born September
2024). The father of the remaining children, G.V. (born
December 2012) and K.G. (born January 2010), is G.V., Sr.
2 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
3 Given our disposition of the appeal, the factual and
procedural summary is abbreviated.
2
in the face and throwing her to the ground. The reporting party
indicated there had been two prior incidents of domestic violence
between mother and father.
1. DCFS Interviews
On February 6, 2025, DCFS social worker Huda El-Haj met
with mother, K.G., H.L., and G.V. Mother acknowledged an
argument took place over her accessing TikTok on her phone.
Father became angry; mother threw a plate of food at him, and
father retaliated by grabbing mother’s hair. Mother claimed
father did not punch her and said the couple had no history of
domestic violence.
All three children heard the argument; K.G. and G.V.
observed father pulling mother’s hair. K.G. noticed a red mark
on mother’s forehead. The children stated mother and father had
a history of arguing; K.G. witnessed mother and father pushing
each other during previous arguments.
2. Police Report
A Los Angeles Police Department report documented
officers’ observations at the scene of the incident. Mother
suffered from a laceration above her right eye and swelling to her
left cheek. She indicated father was tired of her working on
TikTok. An argument ensued whereupon mother threw a plate of
food at father; although the food on the plate hit father, the plate
missed him. Father retaliated by punching mother in the head
and face multiple times and then dragging her by the hair into
the living room. She said father left the residence and she was
not interested in having criminal charges filed against him. K.G.
told officers that she observed father on top of mother, pulling her
hair.
3
B. The Petition and Detention Hearing
On March 20, 2025, DCFS filed a juvenile dependency
petition pursuant to section 300. Based on the January 27
altercation, the petition alleged (1) there is a substantial risk that
the children will suffer serious physical harm inflicted by the
parents (§ 300, subd. (a), count a-1), and (2) there is a substantial
risk that the children will suffer serious physical harm due to the
failure of the parents to protect the children (§ 300, subd. (b),
count b-1).
At the April 4, 2025 detention hearing, the juvenile court
found the children came within the definition of section 300. It
detained father’s biological children from him and released them
to mother before setting an adjudication hearing.
II. Secondary Investigation
During the first week of May 2025, El-Haj interviewed
mother, father, K.G., G.V., and H.L. Their interviews regarding
the January 2025 domestic violence and prior occurrences are
documented in the May 22, 2025 Jurisdiction/Disposition Report,
in relevant part, as follows:
-- Mother admitted that, during the January 2025
incident, she threw a plastic plate of food at father, and the food
hit him in the face. She said father pulled her hair and dragged
her “a little bit to the living room,” but denied he hit her.4
Mother denied there were prior physical altercations with father.
4 DCFS provided a transcript of a video depicting mother’s
interaction with police officers when they arrived on scene. The
transcript reflects mother told officers that father “hit [her]
everywhere,” he was “dragging” her and “pulling [her] hair so
hard.”
4
-- Father told the social worker that mother threw soup
at him during the January 2025 incident. He admitted grabbing
mother’s hair but denied dragging her by the hair and striking
her in the face. Father said he and mother “always fight” but
their arguments are verbal.
-- K.G. confirmed father grabbed mother’s hair during
the argument. Afterward, mother had a red mark on the side of
her forehead and “some red” on the top of her cheek. K.G.
recalled a prior incident of domestic violence wherein she could
hear father hitting mother.
-- When G.V. entered the room following the January
2025 altercation, he “saw food everywhere.” He did not witness
the altercation, but he heard mother tell police officers that
father hit her in the head. G.V. observed mother with a purple
swollen eye and a red cheek. He recalled a prior incident wherein
father attempted to take mother’s phone and mother threw his
clothes outside. On that occasion, mother told G.V. that father
hit her.
-- H.L. saw father hit mother on the face during the
January 2025 altercation. After the incident, H.L. observed a red
mark on mother’s eye.
The DCFS report concluded by recommending the section
300 petition be sustained with mother to be provided family
maintenance services and father granted family enhancement
services.
III. Adjudication/Disposition
At the July 11, 2025 adjudication hearing, counsel for
DCFS represented to the juvenile court that DCFS has “entered a
full settlement” with father. The juvenile court accepted father’s
plea of no contest to the allegations in count b-1 of the petition;
5
count a-1 was dismissed. Following argument, the juvenile court
sustained the b-1 allegation against mother.
A disposition hearing was conducted on August 13, 2025,
wherein the juvenile court declared the children dependents of
the court and ordered they remain in mother’s custody with
family maintenance services.
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.”’ [Citation.] 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.”’ [Citation.] 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. [Citation.]” (In re
D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.).) In other words, “relief is
effective when it ‘can have a practical, tangible impact on the
parties’ conduct or legal status.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 277.)
“[W]hen a parent has demonstrated a specific legal or
practical consequence that will be averted upon reversal, the case
is not moot, and merits review is required. When a parent has
not made such a showing, the case is moot, but the court has
discretion to decide the merits nevertheless.” (D.P., supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 283.)
There is no appellate challenge to the findings of
jurisdiction over the children based on father’s plea of no contest
to the allegations in count b-1. This is fatal to the appeal because
6
“[a] jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against
both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of
either parent bring [him or] her within one of the statutory
definitions of a dependent.” (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51
Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) Accordingly, even if mother’s appeal is
successful, the children would remain under the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court based on the uncontested sustained count
concerning father’s conduct.
There appears to be some overlap between mother’s
argument that the appeal is not moot and her assertion that
appellate courts may exercise their discretion to reach the merits
of a jurisdictional finding. From what we can tell, mother takes
the position that (1) the appeal is not moot because the
jurisdictional finding against her exposes her to a risk of being
reported by DCFS for inclusion in California’s Child Abuse
Central Index (CACI) (Pen. Code, § 11170), and (2) even if the
appeal is moot, we should exercise our discretion to consider it on
the merits.
“Only reports of ‘child abuse or severe neglect’—not
‘general neglect’—must be forwarded to the CACI. [Citation.]”
(In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 281.) This data is accessible to
certain potential employers and law enforcement. (See id at p.
279.) Mother has not established that the factual basis for the
subdivision (b) allegation against her warrants inclusion in
the CACI.5 She does not contend that DCFS has reported her for
inclusion in the CACI, nor does she allege that she received the
required notice that she has been reported (Pen. Code, § 11169,
5 DCFS acknowledges mother’s conduct—throwing a plate of
food at father—“does not meet the reporting requirements for the
CACI . . . .”
7
subd. (c)). Speculation that mother will be reported for potential
inclusion in the CACI is not a compelling reason to address the
juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction as to mother. (See D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 281–282 [rejecting father’s claim that his
appeal is not moot because he failed to demonstrate the general
neglect allegation against him was reported for inclusion in the
CACI or that it was reportable]; compare In re S.R. (2025) 18
Cal.5th 1042, 1053–1054 [appeal is not moot where “there is no
dispute that [m]other’s conduct is reportable, and there has been
no representation by [DCFS] that the report has not been and
will not be forwarded to the [Department of Justice for inclusion
in the CACI].”)
We recognize appellate courts have discretion to hear an
otherwise moot appeal if the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding
“‘“could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond
jurisdiction.”’ [Citations.]” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285.)
Mother’s argument for a discretionary review of her contention
relies solely on the possibility that she will be included in the
CACI. We have already determined the contention does not save
the appeal from dismissal for mootness because it is speculative.
For the same reason, we decline to exercise our discretion to
consider it on the merits.
8
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
KUMAR, J.*
I concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.
9
In re K.G. et al.
B349130
KIM (D.), J., Dissenting
Because the jurisdictional finding mother challenges on
appeal rendered her an offending parent, I would exercise our
discretion to consider the merits of her appeal (In re D.P. (2023)
14 Cal.5th 266, 285; In re Quentin H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 608,
613) and conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s finding against her (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227,
238; In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941).
KIM (D.), J.