In re T.B. CA2/8

Filed 7/8/26 In re T.B. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re T.B., a Person Coming B345377
Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 20LJJP00798B)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Kristen Byrdsong, Commissioner. Dismissed.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
INTRODUCTION
D.B. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s findings
and orders on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3871
petition filed for her son, T.B. On appeal, Mother argues the
dispositional order removing T.B. from her custody should be
reversed because there was no substantial evidence that the prior
disposition was ineffective in protecting the child. Because the
juvenile court has since returned T.B. to Mother’s custody and
terminated jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Section 300 petition
Mother and Tristan B. (Father) are the parents of T.B., a
boy born in December 2015. T.B. is autistic and has significant
developmental delays. Mother also has an older child, T.S., a girl
born in November 2006. Only T.B. is the subject of this appeal.
In December 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging
that police were called to Mother’s home because of a violent
physical altercation between Father and then 14-year-old T.S.
When the police arrived, they observed that the home was in a
filthy condition, and that Mother appeared to be highly
intoxicated. T.S. told the police that Father struck her with a
metal stick and choked her. She also stated that Father had a
drug or alcohol problem and hit Mother in the past. Both Mother
and Father denied the allegations. While Mother denied that
Father resided in the home, Father reported that he lived there.

1 Unless otherwise stated, all further undesignated statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2
On December 15, 2020, DCFS filed a dependency petition
for T.S. and T.B. under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j).
The petition alleged that the children were at substantial risk of
serious physical harm based on Father’s physical abuse of T.S.,
Mother’s failure to protect T.S. from Father’s abuse, and the
unsanitary condition of the family’s home. DCFS later amended
the petition to add a count based on Mother’s refusal to provide
T.S. with ongoing care and supervision.
On September 2, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the
amended section 300 petition and set a contested dispositional
hearing. At the October 27, 2021 dispositional hearing, the court
declared the children dependents of the court, removed them
from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for both
parents. Mother’s case plan included on-demand drug testing, a
domestic violence support group, a parenting program for special
needs children, a psychological evaluation, individual counseling,
and conjoint counseling with T.S. Both parents were granted
monitored visitation with T.B. on the condition that they visit the
child separately.
Over the next 18 months, the juvenile court ordered
continued reunification services for both parents. Throughout
this period, Father did not comply with his case plan. Mother
initially failed to comply with her case plan, but later began
making substantial progress with her services. During this time,
Mother resided separately from Father, and there was a no
contact order in place that prohibited Father from having any
contact with T.S. The court returned T.S. to Mother’s custody on
August 8, 2023. At the continued 18-month review hearing held
for T.B. on January 9, 2024, the court returned T.B. to Mother’s
custody and ordered family preservation services.

3
Between January and November 2024, T.B. remained safe
in Mother’s care. During monthly visits, DCFS observed that
T.B. was strongly bonded with Mother, and that Mother was
attentive to the child’s special needs. Mother struggled, however,
to supervise T.S. Among other issues, T.S. was easily agitated
and engaged in defiant behavior both at home and school,
including verbal confrontations with Mother and physical fights
with her peers. In its reports, DCFS noted that Father was not
visiting T.B., staying in contact with the social worker, or fully
complying with his case plan. Mother told DCFS that she was no
longer in a relationship with Father, and denied that Father
spent time at her home.
The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over T.S. on
November 5, 2024 due to T.S. turning 18 years old. On
November 26, 2024, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction
over T.B. based on Mother’s compliance with her case plan, but
stayed the termination pending receipt of a custody exit order
that granted sole physical custody to Mother and joint legal
custody to both parents.
2. Section 387 petition
On November 26, 2024, the same day that the juvenile
court stayed the termination of jurisdiction, DCFS received a
referral reporting that T.S. fatally shot Father at the family’s
home while T.B. was present. T.S. fled the scene after the
shooting, but was later found and arrested.
In an interview with police, Mother reported that Father
recently came back to reside in the family’s home. Prior to the
shooting, Mother was arguing with T.S. and Father stepped in to
intervene. T.S. threatened to shoot Father to which he replied,
“ ‘Do it.’ ” T.S. then fired a gun at Father. Upon receiving the

4
referral, DCFS attempted to meet in person with Mother, but she
refused to disclose her whereabouts or allow access to T.B.
When DCFS interviewed T.S. after the shooting, she
reported that Father had been residing in the family’s home for a
while. Mother told T.S. not to say anything about Father staying
in the home because if DCFS found out, T.B. would be taken
away. On the day of the shooting, Mother and Father were
arguing and began yelling at T.S. After Father talked “ ‘shit’ ” to
T.S., she went to her room to retrieve her gun. Father and T.S.
continued to argue, and when he lunged at T.S., she shot him.
T.B. then came over and saw Father on the ground.
On December 2, 2024, DCFS filed a supplemental petition
for T.B. under section 387. The petition alleged that the prior
disposition had not been effective in protecting T.B. because
Mother failed to comply with court orders and allowed Father to
reside in the family’s home and have unlimited access to the
child. The petition also alleged that T.S. had brandished a gun
and fatally shot Father while T.B. was present in the home.
On the same day that DCFS filed the petition, the juvenile court
vacated its prior order terminating jurisdiction over T.B. The
following day, the court detained T.B. from Mother, and the child
was placed in foster care pending adjudication of the petition.
In a December 2024 interview with Mother, she indicated
that Father had been staying in the family’s home for about a
week prior to the shooting because he had no other housing.
Mother stated that neither she nor T.B. witnessed the shooting
because they were in separate rooms, and that T.B. was unable to
understand that Father was dead. Mother blamed DCFS, the
dependency attorneys, and the police for not providing her with
help in addressing T.S.’s issues and removing T.S. from the home.

5
In its report, DCFS noted that although Mother claimed that T.B.
did not understand what happened to Father, the child
communicated to the social worker that Father was shot in the
home and died.
On January 15, 2025, the juvenile court held the
adjudication hearing on the section 387 petition. The court
sustained the petition, finding: “[T.B.’s] mother … failed to
comply with the Juvenile Court orders by allowing the child’s
father … to have unlimited access to the child and reside in the
child’s home, in violation of the … Juvenile Court’s order that the
father is to have monitored visits with the child. The previous
disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or
protection of the child, [T.B.]. On 11/26/24, and prior occasions,
the mother allowed the father to reside in the child’s home. On
11/26/24, the child’s adult half sibling, [T.S.], brandished a
firearm, shot, and killed the child’s father, in the child’s home,
and while the child and mother were in the home. Further, the
mother failed to keep DCFS advised of current addresses and
telephone numbers, and whereabouts of the child and mother.
The mother’s violation of Juvenile Court orders, endangers the
child’s physical health and safety, and places the child at risk of
serious physical harm, damage, and danger.” At Mother’s
request, the court set a contested dispositional hearing.
On February 19, 2025, the juvenile court held the
dispositional hearing on the section 387 petition. The court
removed T.B. from Mother’s custody and ordered family
reunification services for Mother, including monitored visitation.
The court found that placing T.B. with Mother would pose a
substantial danger to the child, and that removal was the only
reasonable alternative given Mother’s repeated conduct in

6
violating court orders and allowing Father to reside in the
family’s home. Mother’s case plan included a parenting program
for special needs children, individual counseling, and
participation in developmental services for T.B.
On April 3, 2025, Mother filed an appeal from the juvenile
court’s February 19, 2025 dispositional order.
3. Postappeal orders
On October 22, 2025, Mother filed a request for judicial
notice of an order issued by the juvenile court during the
pendency of her appeal. We grant Mother’s request. (Evid. Code,
§§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).) This order reflects that, on
August 18, 2025, the juvenile court terminated the suitable
placement order for T.B. and returned the child to Mother’s
custody under the court’s continued jurisdiction. On this court’s
own motion, we also take judicial notice of an additional order
issued by the juvenile court after the briefing on appeal was
completed. This order reflects that, on February 17, 2026, the
juvenile court found that the conditions justifying the initial
assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed. The court
terminated jurisdiction over T.B. effective that date and released
the child to Mother.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mother challenges the juvenile court’s
dispositional findings and orders removing T.B. from her custody
under section 387. Mother contends the evidence was insufficient
to establish that the previous disposition had been ineffective in
protecting T.B., or that removal from her custody was the only
reasonable measure to protect the child from the risk of harm.
DCFS asserts Mother’s appeal has been rendered moot by the
return of T.B. to her custody. Alternatively, DCFS argues there

7
was substantial evidence that Mother’s repeated violations of the
juvenile court’s orders placed the child at an ongoing risk of
harm. We conclude Mother’s appeal is moot, and decline to
exercise our discretion to consider the merits of the appeal.
1. Mother’s appeal is moot
“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.” ’ ” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th
266, 276 (D.P.).) “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. [Citation.] However, dismissal for
mootness in such circumstances is not automatic.’ ” (In re T.R.
(2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 206, 214.) Rather, “[a] reviewing court
must ‘ “decide on a case-by-case basis whether subsequent events
in a juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether
[its] decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent
proceeding.” ’ ” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 276.) “[A] case is
not moot where a jurisdictional finding affects parental custody
rights [citation], curtails a parent’s contact with his or her child
[citation], or ‘has resulted in [dispositional] orders which continue
to adversely affect’ a parent.” (Id. at pp. 277–278.) On the other
hand, where a parent fails to identify a “specific legal or practical
consequence from [the jurisdictional] finding, either within or
outside the dependency proceedings,” the appellate court may
decide that no effective relief can be granted and dismiss the

8
appeal as moot. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1493;
see D.P., at pp. 277–278, 283.)
Here, the issue of whether there was substantial evidence
to support the juvenile court’s findings and orders under
section 387 has been rendered moot by its subsequent orders
returning T.B. to Mother’s custody and terminating jurisdiction.
In her appeal, Mother appears to challenge the court’s
January 15, 2025 adjudication finding on the section 387 petition
that the previous disposition was ineffective in protecting T.B.,
and the February 19, 2025 dispositional order removing the child
from Mother. Although the court’s adjudication finding formed
the basis for its removal order, that order is not one that
continues to adversely affect Mother’s rights given that T.B. has
since been returned to her sole physical and legal custody.
In her appellate briefing, Mother argues her appeal is not
moot because if this court were to reverse the removal order,
Mother “would remain as a custodial parent with indefinite
family maintenance services under section 364 and not family
reunification services subject to time limitations under section
366.21.” However, since Mother filed her appellate briefing, the
juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over T.B. with the child
released to Mother. Accordingly, reversing the removal order
would not impact Mother’s eligibility for services because there
are no dependency orders for services currently in effect.
Because Mother has not demonstrated a specific legal or practical
consequence that would be avoided upon reversal of the juvenile
court’s section 387 findings and orders, her appeal is moot.

9
2. Mother’s appeal does not warrant discretionary
review
“Even when a case is moot, courts may exercise their
‘inherent discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute.” (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) In deciding whether to exercise
discretion to review a moot appeal, “[c]ourts may consider
whether the challenged … 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.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 285.) “The
exercise of discretionary review may also be informed by whether
the [challenged] finding is based on particularly pernicious or
stigmatizing conduct.” (Id. at pp. 285–286.) Ultimately, “[a]
reviewing court must decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is
appropriate to exercise discretionary review to reach the merits of
a moot appeal.” (Id. at p. 287.)
Mother argues the juvenile court’s findings and orders on
the section 387 petition “will be used negatively against [her] if
[T.B.] were to be removed again and in any future dependency
case.” As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[a] prior
jurisdictional finding can be considered by the [child welfare
agency] in determining whether to file a dependency petition or
by a juvenile court in subsequent dependency proceedings.
[Citations.] Jurisdictional findings may also impact the child’s
placement.” (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285.) However, in her
current appeal, Mother is not challenging the underlying
jurisdictional findings. Those findings, which were made in 2021
when the juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition, have
become final and are no longer subject to appellate review.
Rather, Mother is challenging the findings made on the

10
section 387 petition that the prior disposition returning T.B. to
Mother’s custody was ineffective, and removal from Mother was
the only reasonable means of protecting the child. These findings
are not based on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct,
nor do they form the basis of any current order that is adverse to
Mother. Any impact that these findings might have on Mother in
a future dependency proceeding is too speculative to support our
discretionary review. Under these circumstances, we decline to
address the merits of Mother’s appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.

VIRAMONTES, J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON, P. J.

WILEY, J.

11