Filed 10/23/26 In re L.G. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re L.G., H053369
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. 2008-1-CP-016402)
T.C.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
C.G.,
Defendant and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
This is an appeal from a denial of a petition to modify a child custody and
visitation order in a case that was originally filed more than 18 years ago. Because the
child who is the subject of the custody and visitation order is now over 18 years old, the
issues on appeal are moot, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
Petitioner and appellant T.C. filed the present action—a petition to establish a
parental relationship and a petition for custody and support—on January 4, 2008, when
her child, L.G., was just under six months old. The trial court entered judgment in
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of
Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847,
853–855.)
May 2008. T.C. and the child’s father, respondent C.G., participated in numerous
proceedings in the trial court over the course of the next 17 and a half years. These
proceedings included custody and support hearings, requests for restraining orders,
requests to modify the restraining orders, requests for attorney’s fees and costs, a
contempt hearing, a motion to compel discovery, a request for discovery sanctions, and
many others. The trial court’s register of actions is 180 pages long, encompassing well
over 2,000 events and filings from January 4, 2008 to September 10, 2025.
Both parties are self-represented on this appeal. Neither side has included
citations to the relevant portions of the record in their briefs, as required by
rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court. Both sides have attached various
documents directly to their briefs that are not a part of the clerk’s transcript. C.G. asserts,
without citation, that T.C. attempted to kidnap L.G. in 2019, attacked a visitation
supervisor in front of L.G., and was sentenced to “over four years in jail” by the Santa
Barbara County Superior Court. Although T.C. does not dispute any of this in her reply
brief—and there are indeed references to her incarceration in the clerk’s transcript—there
is insufficient information in the record to support C.G.’s assertions. C.G. also argues
that there is a no-contact criminal protective order with T.C. as the restrained person and
L.G. as the protected person, but this protective order is not in the appellate record, either.
Instead, C.G. attaches a copy of a protective order directly to his brief.2
On June 3, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on a request by C.G. for attorney’s
fees and costs, and to modify a writ of execution. We do not have a copy of the resulting
order, which was apparently filed on June 11, 2020.
On March 11, 2025, T.C. filed a petition to modify custody and visitation as to
L.G., who was 17 years and seven months old at that time. The hearing on this petition
2 C.G. has not filed a request for judicial notice of this protective order, and we
decline to take such notice, as it is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2)(A).)
2
went forward on May 5, 2025, and the trial court issued findings and an order after
hearing on June 17, 2025.
T.C. filed two notices of appeal on June 5, 2025: one appeal was directed to the
court’s June 11, 2020 order, presumably regarding attorney’s fees and costs; the other
was directed to the court’s May 5, 2025 minute order regarding custody and visitation.
T.C. did not file a notice of appeal with respect to the formal June 17, 2025 order.
On July 31, 2025, this court issued an order directing T.C. to show cause why the
appeal should not be dismissed as either untimely or taken from a nonappealable order.
The order indicated that T.C. was to provide “full and complete copies of each judgment
or order she seeks to appeal, including any written orders after hearing filed by the trial
court memorializing its minute orders.” In her August 11, 2025 response, T.C. included
the May 5, 2025 minute order and June 17, 2025 findings and order after hearing, and she
argued that the June 3, 2020 minute order had previously been submitted with her civil
case information statement. After reviewing her submission, this court dismissed the
first notice of appeal (as to the 2020 order), noting that it was “duplicative of appeal
No. H053147, which was dismissed on April 25, 2025” and “untimely under California
Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a).” After receiving a further letter brief from T.C., the court
deferred ruling on the second notice of appeal (as to the 2025 order) until consideration
of the merits.
With respect to the 2025 order, T.C. now argues that the trial court erred in failing
to provide a court reporter or electronic recording for the May 5, 2025 hearing on custody
and visitation, as well as in finding that she had been adequately served with C.G.’s
papers by his trial counsel, even though she had expressly refused to consent to electronic
service. But these arguments are ultimately beside the point, because L.G. turned 18 in
July 2025. The trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over custody and visitation
matters is limited to the parties’ minor children. (See Fam. Code, §§ 2010, subd. (b) &
3022; see also In re Marriage of Jensen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 587, 594 (Jensen)
3
[no subject matter jurisdiction “to issue a visitation order regarding [adult son] after he
reached the age of majority”]; Conservatorship of Navarrete (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th
1018, 1031 [adult daughter, citing Jensen].) Once L.G. reached the age of majority last
year, he was no longer subject to any of the trial court’s custody and visitation orders. It
is thus impossible for this court to grant T.C. effective relief regarding any allegedly
erroneous minute order on May 5, 2025, as well as any allegedly erroneous June 17, 2025
order after hearing, to the extent that the latter could be deemed to be encompassed by
T.C.’s notice of appeal. (Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 566 [“A question
becomes moot when, pending an appeal from a judgment of a trial court, events transpire
which prevent the appellate court from granting any effectual relief.”].)
We note that C.G. did raise the age and mootness issue in his respondent’s brief,
but T.C.’s reply brief does not address it at all. She therefore had an opportunity to
address the issue and apparently chose not to do so. Because the final custody and
visitation order is now moot, there is nothing left to be appealed, and this appeal must be
dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot. As the prevailing party, respondent C.G. is
entitled to his costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)
4
CHUNG, J.
WE CONCUR:
GROVER, ACTING P. J.
DANNER, J.
T.C. v. C.G.
H053369
Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.