In Re Dani R., 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Dani R., 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
108 citation events (108 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re J.G. CA4/1 (calctapp, 2024-08-02)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re J.G. CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404, 406 [mother’s argument that “the juvenile court erroneously denied her reunification services” was “undeniably moot, because she has since been offered reunification services”].) As she agrees, we cannot provide the relief Mother initially sought, “a new disposition hearing to [obtain] placement of the minor with mother,” because she has already received that relief.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Abigail M. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(Citing In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 436 [“An appeal may become moot where subsequent events, including orders by the juvenile court, render it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief.”]; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [granting of mother’s § 388 petition and stipulation of parents to findings of the juvenile court rendered appeal moot].) “A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any 8 subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment.” (§ 395, subd. (a)(1); acco…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zenith Ins. Co. v. Hettinga Transportation CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 [as a general rule, appellate review is limited to 3. actual controversies; a case that involves “ ‘only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be maintained’ ”]; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [“ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.’ ”]; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [if no effectual relief can be granted, an appeal will be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re George A. CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(See In re Rashad D., supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 163 [“‘[t]he critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error’”]; In re A.B. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1364 [“‘[w]hen no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed’”]; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [“‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Bran. S. CA2/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(See In re A.T. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 267 , 274 [ICWA does not apply where child is placed with a parent]; In re Austin J. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 870 , 881, fn. 5 [when court terminates foster care placement and returns child to parent’s custody, the “question whether to reverse the prior order based on noncompliance with ICWA is . . . moot”]; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [“ ‘action that originally 2 DCFS does not take a position as to the juvenile court’s order requiring random drug tests, noting it recommended testing only upon suspicion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Carson A. CA1/4
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(In re Jennifer V. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1206 , 1210 [stipulation to dispositional order did not waive parent’s challenge to jurisdictional findings]; In re Christie D. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 469, 475 [following Jennifer V.]; In re Eric A. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1394 [distinguishing Jennifer V. and dismissing appeal as moot where parent unambiguously stipulated to jurisdictional findings]; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [appeal dismissed as moot where parents made unqualified admissions that jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders were supported by substantial evid…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re N.M. CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
DISCUSSION “ ‘An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief.’ ” (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 ; In re A.Z. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1180 (A.Z.); In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [dismissing dependency appeal, observing: “ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Menefee Construction v. Calmat Co. CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486 [as a general rule, appellate review is limited to actual controversies; a case that involves “ ‘only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be maintained’ ”]; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [“ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.’ ”]; Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [if no effectual relief can be granted, an appeal will be di…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Rubi C. CA2/4
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
(In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481 , 1488- 1489 [appeal moot because family law exit order granted mother the relief she sought through her appeal]; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404-406 [appeal on substantial evidence grounds regarding lack of services provided to Mother moot when juvenile court subsequently provided the requested services and parents stipulated to express findings admitting the orders were supported by substantial evidence]; In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 436 [appeal of order granting custody to biological father not moot even though juvenile court su…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Austin J.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
(Cf. In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 406 [appeal from order denying mother reunification services rendered moot by post-appeal order granting her such services].) We nevertheless address the merits of the claims because the underlying dependency case and ICWA’s duty of inquiry are ongoing and there is a reasonable probability that issues concerning ICWA compliance will arise again.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re J.D. CA1/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
(See In re Dani R., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 [Waiver requires an unambiguous stipulation to jurisdictional or dispositional findings at review hearings.]; In re Eric A. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1394-1395 [same].) 4 resolve the issue on appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re J.T. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 435 (In re E.T.); In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 (In re Dani R.).) “‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Samuel S. CA2/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.’ [Citation.]” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 (Dani R.).) We decide on a case-by-case basis “whether subsequent events in a dependency case have rendered [an] appeal moot and whether [our] decision would affect the outcome of the case in a [later] proceeding.” (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1055 .) In Dani R., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 402 , a mother appealed a juvenile court order denying her request for reunification services.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re K.M. CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(In re Dani R., supra, at p. 404.) In this case, following the DCFS’s filing of its appeal, the juvenile court held an 18-month review hearing for K.M., K.R., Kd.C., and Kl.C. in April 2014.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re J.S. CA1/5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 406 [appeal moot where parents stipulated to visitation plan set forth in social services report; mother’s appeal from denial of reunification services mooted by subsequent offer of services to mother].) 9 DISPOSITION The orders from which the appeal is taken are affirmed. _________________________ Jones, P.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re K.L. CA4/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
(See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 405-406 [parent’s stipulation to detriment findings made by clear and convincing evidence “amount to an unqualified admission that the initial jurisdictional findings and dispositional order are supported by substantial evidence”].) Mother received due process.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orange County Social Services Agency v. B.B.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
(In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 405 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 926 ].) Mother did not sign the document SSA refers to as a “stipulation,” and has submitted a declaration stating she would never have stipulated that A. and Ad. should be placed separately.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orange County Social Services Agency v. Wendy C.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
The CACI report and the referral printouts are not postjudgment evidence—they existed when the juvenile court denied Wendy C.’s motion—and therefore would not cause the appeal to become moot. “ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.’ ” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 926 ], italics added; see In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 889 ] [“ ‘An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orange County Social Services Agency v. Albert Z.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
(See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 926 ] [“ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Celeste W.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
(In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404-405 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 926 ]; In re Dylan T (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 769 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ].) Here, the issues raised in this appeal are of continuing public importance because they challenge the court’s finding that a parent’s housing, previously deemed by Agency to be adequate, creates a substantial risk of detriment to a minor when there are no other protective issues to warrant continued out-of-home placement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Yvonne W.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Celeste filed an opposition to the motion, arguing *1404 the issues are not moot, and even if they are, this court should exercise its inherent authority to decide the merits of the controversy. [3] (6) An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief. ( In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 798 ].) However, a reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Delong
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.’ (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 642, p. 669.)” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 926 ].) The issue of whether events which occur during the pendency of an appeal of a criminal conviction can render the appeal moot is not a novel one.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Everest Investors 8 v. Whitehall Real Estate Limited Partnership XI
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
(See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 926 ] [an appeal may be dismissed when it is mooted by subsequent events].) But Everest, in turn, has filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in favor of the General Partners, and this appeal is thus not moot.
discussed Cited "see" In re J.M. CA
Cal. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: accord · confidence high
Consequently the question of mootness must be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1547 , quoting In re Kristin B. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 596, 605 ; accord, In re Dani R., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 .) An appellate court may also “exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review.” (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404 .) We are not persuaded there was any error, m…
discussed Cited "see" Guardianship of J.C. CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
(Ibid.; see In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [questions involved become moot because of subsequent acts or events, and reversal in such a case would be without practical effect].) Even assuming we agreed with appellant’s arguments asserted on appeal, we could not grant the requested relief.
discussed Cited "see" In re A.M. CA2/8
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: accord · confidence high
Consequently the question of mootness must be decided on a case- by-case basis.’ ” (In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1547 , quoting In re Kristen B. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 596, 605 ; accord, In re Dani R., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 .) An appellate court may also “exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review.” (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404 .) We are not persuaded there is any error of …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re: Guardianship of A.S.
Nev. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 570 , 257 P.3d 396, 400 (2011) (recognizing that a stipulation has a preclusive effect on later litigation); see also In re Dani R., 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 926 , 928 (Ct. App. 2001) (treating a father's appellate issues regarding custody as moot because, subsequent to the circumstances that supported his arguments on those issues, he entered into stipulations resolving them); 83 C.J.S.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Hannah W. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
(See In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481 , 1488; In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330 ; see also In re Randy R. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 41, 44 [appellate issue relating to disposition in juvenile delinquency matter rendered moot by termination of jurisdiction].) “The question of mootness in a dependency case should be decided on a case-by-case basis, particularly when an error in the juvenile court’s initial jurisdictional finding has been alleged. [Citations.]” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402 , 404–405.) Because the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over four …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Z.E. CA1/5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
(Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 726 .) 2 matter in issue in the case before it.‟ ” [Citation.] . . . “[W]hen, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the [respondent], an event occurs which renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of [appellant], to grant him [or her] any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal. [Citations.]” ‟ [Citation.]” (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316 ; see also In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re DANI R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Orange County Social Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Dan R. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
G027802.
California Court of Appeal.
May 23, 2001.
106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 926
Rylaarsdam.
Cited by 83 opinions  |  Published

Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Dan R.

[*927] Marsha Faith Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Irvine, for Defendant and Appellant Geraldine W.

Laurence M. Watson, County Counsel, and Julie J. Farber, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael D. Randall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Los Angeles, for the Minor.

OPINION

RYLAARSDAM, J.

Dan R. and Geraldine W., father and mother of 19-month-old Dani, appeal from a judgment declaring their son a dependent of the court and removing him from their parental custody. Father contends the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and order removing Dani from his physical custody are not supported by substantial evidence. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) In addition, he argues the court abused its discretion by granting him only monitored visitation. Mother joins in the issues raised by father and, in addition, contends the juvenile court erroneously denied her reunification services.

Minor's counsel informed us the juvenile court subsequently granted mother's section 388 petition for reunification services. On our own motion, we requested letter briefs addressing the issue of mootness. Respondent argues mother's appeal is moot and the remaining issues on appeal should also be dismissed as moot based on the parents' stipulation to various findings at the six-month review hearing. We agree and therefore dismiss.

DISCUSSION

The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petition for the parents' failure to adequately protect Dani and for mother's prior abuse or neglect of his half siblings. The court also found "to vest custody with the parents at this time would be detrimental to the minor, and to vest custody with social services director is required to serve in the minor's best interests." Reunification services were ordered for father, but not for mother.

After the appeal was filed, mother petitioned the juvenile court for reunification services, and her petition was granted. The six-month review hearing took place on March 19, 2001, and the parents stipulated to the findings "that return of minor to parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the physical or emotional well being of the minor" and "that there has been some progress made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement...."

"[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed." (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 642, p. 669.) The question of mootness in a dependency case should be decided on a case-by-case basis, particularly when an error in the juvenile court's initial jurisdictional finding has been alleged. (In re Kristin B. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 596, 605, 232 Cal.Rptr. 36; see also In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1547, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 10.)

We previously held a parent does not waive the right to challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings merely because the parent stipulates to a dispositional order. (In re Jennifer V. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1209-1210, 243 Cal.Rptr. 441.) In Jennifer V., we concluded waiver[*928] would only be found in the event of an unambiguous stipulation to the jurisdictional findings. (Id. at p. 1209, 243 Cal. Rptr. 441.) Because the stipulation in that case contained no admission by the parents to the truth of the jurisdictional allegations of child abuse and neglect, we concluded the father had not waived his right to challenge the jurisdictional findings. (Id. at p. 1210, 243 Cal.Rptr. 441.)

More recently we concluded a parent had waived the right to challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings by unambiguously stipulating to those jurisdictional findings at the six-month review hearing. (In re Eric. A. (1999) 73 Cal. App.4th 1390, 1394-1395, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 401.) In Eric A, the father's attorney checked the box on the stipulation form stating "`pursuant to Section 364(c) ... [that] conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Sec. 300...."' (Id. at p. 1394, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 401.) After concluding the father's stipulation constituted an express waiver, we further explained our "decision should serve notice that such stipulations are fatal to pending appeals." (Id. at p. 1395, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 401.)

The facts regarding the stipulation in this case are not directly analogous to the facts in either of our earlier decisions. Unlike Jennifer V., the parents here did more than simply stipulate to a dispositional order. But, unlike the father in Eric A, the parents refrained from checking the box stating "conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Sec. 300." Respondent nonetheless argues Eric A. applies because the parents checked the boxes stating "that return of minor to parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the physical or emotional well being of the minor" and "that there has been some progress made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement...." We agree.

The parents stipulated to express findings, made by "clear and convincing evidence," that it would be detrimental to return Dani to them and that continued placement is appropriate and necessary based on the progress they have made in alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating Dani's placement. Read together, these findings amount to an unqualified admission that the initial jurisdictional findings and dispositional order are supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the parents stipulated to the visitation plan set forth in the social services reports filed with the juvenile court after the appeal was initiated. These subsequent acts directly contradict, and therefore moot, the issues raised in father's appeal. The sole issue raised by mother on appeal is also undeniably moot, because she has since been offered reunification services. (In re Pablo D. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 759, 761, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 247.)

Father's counsel on appeal makes the unsupported argument the attorney at the six-month review hearing signed the stipulation without father's consent. While we note father did not personally attend the hearing, mother was present. The parents live together, father previously expressed his devotion to both mother and child, and there is no reason to believe father would not have consented to the stipulation even if he had personally `attended the six-month review hearing.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

SILLS, P.J., and O'LEARY, J., concur.