Filed 10/6/26 In re S.S. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re S.S. et al., Persons Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY,
G066519
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. 23DP0002A,
v. 23DP0003A)
T.V. et al., OPINION
Defendants and Respondents;
S.S. et al.,
Minors and Appellants.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
June Jee An, Judge. Dismissed.
Lelah S. Forrey-Baker, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Minors and Appellants.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Aurelio Torre,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
This is a juvenile dependency case involving minors S.S. (the
daughter) and R.S. (the son). At a 12-month review hearing, the juvenile
court found there was a substantial probability that the daughter and the son
(the children) would be returned to the physical custody of their father
(Father) within six months. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)1
Based on this finding, the court continued the case, scheduled an 18-month
permanency review hearing, and continued Father’s reunification services.
The children appeal this order, arguing the court erred by failing to
terminate Father’s reunification services at the 12-month review hearing.
Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) has moved to
dismiss this appeal as moot. It has provided evidence showing that after this
appeal was filed, the juvenile court terminated Father’s reunification
services. Since we cannot provide the children with any effective relief, the
appeal is moot. We also decline to exercise our discretion to consider the moot
appeal. SSA’s motion to dismiss is granted.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I.
THE PRIOR DEPENDENCY CASE
The children’s parents (the parents) were in a long-term
relationship but never married. SSA initiated a prior dependency case in
December 2022. In the prior case, the juvenile court granted a protective
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
2
custody warrant removing the children from the care of their mother
(Mother) and leaving them in Father’s care. The prior dependency case was
terminated in September 2023. Both parents were granted joint legal custody
of the children, but Father was given sole physical custody with supervised
visitation to Mother. After the prior dependency case was closed, Father
allowed Mother to move back in with him and the children.
II.
INITIATION OF THIS DEPENDENCY CASE
A. The Petition
SSA initiated the current dependency case in November 2024.2
On November 16, 2024, police officers conducted a welfare check at the home
of the parents and children (the family) around midnight. The family was
living in the patio area of the children’s paternal grandmother’s home, in a
“backyard makeshift hut covered by blankets.” Their living area was dirty
and appeared to be unsafe. The officers also found methamphetamine and
what appeared to be fentanyl. The children’s paternal aunt and paternal
grandmother reported that the family had been living in the patio area for
about a year and had access to the bathroom and kitchen inside the house.
The police officers arrested the parents for child abuse and
endangerment, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of
controlled substance paraphernalia, among other offenses. The parents were
taken to jail, and the children were brought to Orangewood Children and
2 Since this appeal concerns Father, we focus on the portions of the
dependency case pertaining to him.
3
Family Center. SSA interviewed the parents and the daughter the day of the
arrest.3
The daughter was eight years old. She stated that Mother mostly
took care of her and the son. Father sometimes yelled at her, made her cry,
and called her names like “‘dumb’” and “‘stupid.’” She wanted to remain with
Mother but was unsure whether she wanted to live with Father “because
‘sometimes, he is nice and other times he is mean.’”
Mother admitted that she and Father were drug addicts. She had
started going to rehab two years prior and went to a methadone clinic every
day to meet with her counselor. Mother stated that Father had also begun to
attend rehab and was receiving medication and counseling. Mother wanted to
get herself and the children away from Father, but she did not have a job,
money, or support from others.
Father said that he and Mother had an on and off again
relationship. Father admitted that he and Mother had a history of drug use,
including heroin and methamphetamine. He claimed that he had not used
heroin in years and was being treated at a methadone clinic, but he admitted
to using methamphetamine a month prior. He denied that the drugs or drug
paraphernalia found at the family’s home belonged to him.
SSA filed a dependency petition on November 19, 2024 (the
petition), alleging jurisdiction was proper under section 300, subdivision
(b)(1) and (g). Among other things, the petition alleged that the parents had
exposed the children to an unsafe home environment, the parents had
unresolved substance abuse problems, Father had unresolved anger
management issues, both parents had criminal histories, both parents were
3 The son was not interviewed. He was only about 23 months old at the
time and was “not verbal enough to provide a statement.”
4
currently incarcerated, and Father had allowed Mother to move back in with
him and the children after the prior dependency case was terminated.
The juvenile court found the petition set forth a prima facie case
and that removal of the children from the parents’ custody was necessary.
While the parents remained incarcerated, the court authorized $100 for each
parent to facilitate phone and video calls with the children. The parents were
granted a minimum of eight hours a week of supervised visitation once
released from custody.
B. The Jurisdiction Hearing
Prior to the jurisdiction hearing, SSA filed a report
recommending that the juvenile court sustain the petition, declare the
children dependents, and provide reunification services to the parents.
The report stated that a social worker had interviewed Father in
jail. The social worker recommended that Father participate in drug testing,
parenting classes, self-help meetings, outpatient substance abuse treatment,
and individual counseling. The social worker also provided Father with
different resources for services.
A jurisdiction hearing was held on December 17, 2024. Mother
had been released from custody by this time, but Father had not. Mother and
Father both submitted on the petition. The juvenile court found the petition
to be true by a preponderance of the evidence and declared the children
dependents of the court. Custody of the children was taken from the parents
and vested with SSA. Each parent was granted eight hours of weekly
supervised visitation.
5
III.
THE SIX-MONTH REVIEW PERIOD
A. Services
Father had periods where he was responsive and regularly
communicated with SSA. But there were also periods when SSA was unable
to reach him for weeks. During the period when he was communicating with
SSA, Father stated that he wanted to comply with his case plan. He reported
completing all of his services through Phoenix House, his inpatient
substance-misuse treatment program. He had begun living in a sober living
house in early February 2025.
Despite Father’s success at Phoenix House, a social worker stated
he would still need to complete individual therapy, parenting education, a 12-
step program, and engage in ongoing drug testing. Father was frustrated
because he felt that had already done these services at Phoenix House. But
he agreed to accept referrals for these services to regain custody of the
children. Father provided SSA with proof that he had attended 11 meetings
for a 12-step program between March 3 and 17, 2025. He also reported that
he had an appointment with a psychiatrist at the end of March 2025 for an
initial assessment.
On April 28, 2025, a social worker met with Father at his sober
living house. Father was advised that his referrals for individual therapy,
parenting classes, and drug testing had been processed. Father again
expressed reluctance at having to complete services again but stated he
would contact the providers so he could regain custody of the children.
After the meeting on April 28, 2025, SSA had trouble contacting
Father. It attempted to reach Father multiple times by phone and text
6
message for weeks but was unable to contact him. Father also missed a
compliance meeting with SSA during this period.
Father reestablished contact with SSA on May 28, 2025, e-
mailing a social worker a letter of completion (the completion letter) from
Phoenix House. The completion letter was dated April 30, 2025, and stated
that Father had completed an inpatient program on January 31, 2025. He
had transitioned to outpatient treatment on February 4, 2025.
Father attended a child and family team meeting on June 3, 2025
(the team meeting). Father reported that he was living at his mother’s home
and that he had completed individual therapy and an outpatient drug
program and was attending “12 Step meetings and [would drug] test on the
PATCH.” Father also stated that he had not been able to contact the social
worker for the past few weeks because of phone problems. SSA noted
concerns that Father had not completed parent education classes or drug
testing. Nor had he provided verification of individual therapy or his
outpatient program.
On July 1, 2025, Father e-mailed SSA copies of two progress
letters from Phoenix House dated January 29, 2025, and February 4, 2025,
along with a certification of Father’s completion of the inpatient program as
of January 31, 2025. The progress letters largely repeated the information in
the completion letter.
Aside from the July 1, 2025 e-mail, however, SSA had difficulty
contacting Father after the team meeting. A social worker attempted to call
and text him multiple times in June and July 2025, but he did not respond.
SSA was finally able to reach Father by phone on July 24, 2025, nearly two
months after the team meeting. Father stated that the children’s paternal
grandfather had died earlier that month and asked whether his sister or
7
adult niece could supervise the children for the funeral on July 27, 2025. The
social worker told Father she had left him multiple texts and phone calls
trying to speak to him about the case. Father stated his cell phone had
broken, and he had only recently fixed it. The social worker told Father that
she could not guarantee that either relative would be cleared to supervise the
children prior to the funeral, which upset Father.
SSA’s next contact with Father occurred on August 11, 2025.
Father stated he was currently homeless and requested a housing referral.
The social worker requested to meet with Father in person for a compliance
check, but Father refused. The social worker also requested that Father
communicate any cell phone issues to her immediately.
B. Visitation
Nothing in the record shows that Father had any in person or
telephone visits with the son during the entire dependency case.
As to the daughter, in late February 2025, a social worker
informed Father that the daughter was open to having one weekly 20-minute
phone call. On March 6, 2025, the first telephone visit was held between
Father and daughter under SSA’s supervision. After the call, the daughter
stated she was willing to have more calls with Father in the future. SSA
informed Father that the telephone visits with the daughter would be held
every Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.
Father next called the daughter on April 1, 2025, but the
daughter opted out of the call. Father was understanding that the daughter
did not want to speak with him. Father’s next call occurred on April 15, 2025,
and it appears that he spoke with the daughter. Father did not call the
daughter again until July 9, 2025. He also called again on July 16, 2025. He
made no other calls to her during this reporting period.
8
To summarize, during the entire six-month review period, Father
called the daughter on March 6, April 1 & 15, and July 9 & 16, 2025. The
daughter stated that Father’s lack of commitment to the telephonic visits
made her not want to see him in person.
C. Hearing
A six-month review hearing was held on August 21, 2025. Both
Father and Mother attended the hearing. The juvenile court found that
Mother had made moderate progress on her case plan while Father’s progress
had been minimal.
The juvenile court ordered Father to comply with drug testing. It
also ordered SSA to provide a housing referral to Father and to use its best
efforts to ensure phone calls between Father and the children. It set a 12-
month review hearing and continued services to both parents.
IV.
THE 12-MONTH REVIEW PERIOD
A. SSA’s Reports
Father was unresponsive during this period. SSA made
numerous attempts to contact Father. But his only contact with SSA was a
text message sent to a social worker on August 29, 2025, stating that he had
changed his cell phone number. Given Father’s lack of contact, SSA searched
numerous databases to determine whether he had been incarcerated in
Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Los Angeles
County, or San Diego County. It found nothing. Thus, SSA reported that
“[F]ather’s whereabouts are currently unknown, and it is unclear if [Father]
has enrolled in any of [the] recommended services. [Father] has been
unresponsive to the SSA’s attempts at contact.”
9
Father had no contact with the daughter after their last
telephone call on July 16, 2025. Father did not respond to the visitation
program’s attempts to reach him, so his visitation referral was closed on
September 22, 2025.
B. The 12-Month Review Hearing
The 12-month review hearing was held on January 27, 2026.
Mother attended the 12-month review hearing. Father did not.
At the hearing, SSA recommended continuing reunification
services and scheduling an 18-month review hearing as to both parents due
to a “[s]ubstantial probability of return by the 18-Month Review . . . .” The
children’s counsel objected to extending more reunification services to Father.
Their counsel argued that the juvenile court could not make a finding of
substantial probability of return by the 18-month hearing as to Father, since
he was “currently nonresponsive to the social worker, and [was] not
participating in visitation.”
Over the children’s objection, the juvenile court continued the
case, set an 18-month review hearing, and continued services to both parents.
Its ruling was based on a finding that under section 366.21, subdivision
(g)(1), “there [was] a substantial probability that the children [would] be
returned to the physical custody of the parents within six months because
they [had] consistently and regularly contacted and visited the children,
made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the children’s
removal from the home, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to
complete the objectives of their case plan to provide for the children’s safety,
protection, and physical, and emotional well-being, and their special needs.”
10
The children appeal the juvenile court’s order continuing Father’s
reunification services at the 12-month review hearing. They contend the
court erred by failing to terminate his services.
DISCUSSION
I.
MOOTNESS
SSA moves to dismiss this appeal as moot. We previously granted
its request for judicial notice of two minute orders issued by the juvenile
court on May 20, 2026, after this appeal had been filed. The two minute
orders terminated reunification services for both parents (the termination
orders). Since Father’s reunification services have already been terminated,
SSA argues this appeal is moot. We agree.
“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.”
(In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.)
The children appeal the juvenile court’s order made at the 12-
month review hearing continuing Father’s reunification services. But the
outcome they seek on appeal has already occurred: Father’s reunification
services were terminated in the termination orders. Thus, there is no longer
11
any ongoing harm for us to rectify. Reversing the appealed order will not
provide the children with any effective relief.
II.
DISCRETION
The children do not appear to contest that their appeal is moot.
Rather, they argue that we should exercise our inherent discretion to address
the merits of the appeal. We decline to do so.
“Even when a case is moot, courts may exercise their ‘inherent
discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute. [Citation.] As a rule, courts will
generally exercise their discretion to review a moot case when ‘the case
presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur,’ ‘when there
may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties,’ or ‘when a
material question remains for the court’s determination.’” (In re D.P., supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 282.)
Juvenile dependency appeals are particularly prone to mootness
challenges due to the speed at which dependency cases are resolved by the
juvenile court. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 284.) Courts can consider
multiple factors when determining whether to exercise discretionary review
of a moot juvenile dependency appeal. (Id. at p. 286.) Here, the children argue
we should address the merits of this appeal because it raises issues of
continuing public interest that typically evade appellate review. Even if that
were true, however, we do not think this appeal presents an effective vehicle
to address those issues.
The children’s appeal contains two arguments. First, they
contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s
finding that there was a substantial probability that they would be returned
to Father’s custody by the 18-month review hearing. Given the facts of this
12
case, in which Father disappeared for the entire six-month period prior to the
12-month review hearing, this does not appear to be a difficult or unsettled
issue for which a published opinion would provide useful guidance. Indeed,
SSA’s respondent’s brief concedes that there is insufficient evidence to
support the court’s substantial probability finding.4
The children’s second argument is based on case law stating that
“when reunification efforts continue for one parent after the 12–month review
hearing, a court has the discretion to offer services to the nonreunifying
parent.” (In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 566.) The children
argue the juvenile court abused its discretion by offering services to Father
when it continued services to Mother.
Nothing in the record indicates the juvenile court exercised its
discretion in this manner. It never referenced such an exercise of discretion
or made any findings on this issue. Nor do we see anything in the record
indicating that this theory was ever raised prior to or at the 12-month review
hearing. Rather, the record indicates that the court’s decision to continue
services to Father was based on its finding that there was a substantial
probability that the children would be returned to his physical custody. We
will not exercise our discretion to address a theory that was not discussed by
the lower court.
4 No other party filed a respondent’s brief.
13
DISPOSITION
SSA’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
MOORE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
DELANEY, J.
14