In re T.A. CA2/8

DISCUSSION

Father appeals the juvenile court’s order at the hearing on the section 387 petition placing the children with their mother and awarding him monitored visits. Father argues insufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that the previous dispositional orders were ineffective in protecting the children and its findings justifying removal. However, more recently, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction with an exit order awarding sole physical custody to Mother, joint legal custody to both parents, and monitored visits for Father.2 There is no indication that Father, or any other party, appealed from the exit order, and the time to do so has expired. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1).) DCFS contends this renders the appeal moot, and we agree. Father argues the appeal is not moot based on his belief that if we were to reverse the findings and orders on the petition for a more restrictive placement, the matter “would be remanded to the family court with instructions to change the Custody Order so that it grants both [parents] joint physical and legal custody” of the children. This is not the case. Reversing the findings and orders on the section…