Filed 7/14/23 In re D.P. CA2/5 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.P., a Person Coming B301135 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP00973B) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.P. et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Barnes, Judge. Reversed. 1 Megan Turkat-Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.P. Landon Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Y.G. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION T.P. (Father) and Y.G. (Mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s order finding jurisdiction over their now four-year-old son D.P. (the child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)1 and order of a period of informal supervision by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department). On February 10, 2021, the panel majority dismissed the appeal as moot because the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the child during the pendency of the parents’ appeals.2 On May 26, 2021, the California Supreme Court granted Father’s petition for review. On January 19, 2023, the Supreme Court agreed Father’s appeal is moot but remanded for us to reconsider Father’s argument for discretionary review of the moot issue in light of the principles and factors set forth in its 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Presiding Justice Rubin dissented from the mootness holding. 2 opinion. Having considered the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion, we exercise our discretion to review Father’s appeal and hold that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdiction order.3 II. BACKGROUND The following background is from the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266: “In 2019, Father and Mother brought two-month-old D.P. to the hospital because he had been crying more than usual and seemed to have difficulty breathing. A chest X-ray revealed that D.P. had pneumonia as well as a single healing rib fracture that the parents, surprised by the latter finding, could not explain. A nurse practitioner who treated D.P. and performed a skeletal survey found no evidence of any other trauma or injuries to his body. The Department received a report alleging that D.P. was a victim of physical abuse and stating that his five-year-old sister B.P. might also be at risk. Following treatment for the rib fracture and for unrelated pneumonia and flu, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals