In re J.F.

*205 Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant N.D. (mother) was a minor when the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code 1 on behalf of her 17-month-old son J.F. The juvenile court found jurisdiction because of mother’s mental condition, declared J.F. to be a dependent, and ordered him to remain in the home of mother. The juvenile court has continued to maintain jurisdiction over J.F. Mother appeals from an order entered at the last contested section 364 hearing at which the juvenile court maintained jurisdiction despite the recommendation of the Department to terminate jurisdiction. We interpret section 364, subdivision (c) to permit the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction if there is sufficient evidence to support such retention, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Department to terminate jurisdiction. We affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

In early March 2011, mother, a 16-year-old dependent of the court, reportedly wanted to hurt herself and others. There was information she had been subjected to sexual abuse as a child by her stepfather and, as a result, had…

Dissenting. — I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ determination to reach the merits of this appeal, as set forth in footnote 3 of the majority opinion. Both the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and N.D. (mother) agree this case is moot — the dependency court has terminated jurisdiction. In recognition of this fact, mother has moved to voluntarily dismiss her appeal. I would grant that request and put this litigation to an end.

This case is particularly deserving of dismissal on mother’s request. Mother raised only one issue on appeal: Is there substantial evidence to support the dependency court’s order continuing to exercise jurisdiction over J.F. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364? 1 That issue has been resolved by the termination of jurisdiction. Nothing more need be said regarding the issue.

Moreover, my colleagues attribute an argument to mother that she has never asserted. According to the majority, mother argues that because the Department recommended that jurisdiction be terminated, it follows that the Department did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that continued jurisdiction was proper. The…

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant N.D. (mother) was a minor when the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code1 on behalf of her 17-month-old son J.F. The juvenile court found jurisdiction because of mother’s mental condition, declared J.F. to be a dependent, and ordered him to remain in the home of mother. The juvenile court has continued to maintain jurisdiction over J.F. Mother appeals from an order entered at the last contested section 364 hearing at which the juvenile court maintained jurisdiction despite the recommendation of the Department to terminate jurisdiction. We interpret section 364, subdivision (c) to permit the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction if there is sufficient evidence to support such retention, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Department to terminate jurisdiction. We affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

In early March 2011, mother, a 16-year-old dependent of the court, reportedly wanted to hurt herself and others. There was information she had been subjected to sexual abuse as a child by her stepfather and, as a result, had homicidal ideations. She…