In In re D.P., the Supreme Court today holds a father’s appellate challenge of a juvenile court ruling that his conduct put his son at risk of serious harm was mooted by the juvenile court’s later termination of its jurisdiction. But the court also concludes the Court of Appeal has discretion to review the moot case, and it reviews “a variety of factors” that can inform whether to exercise the discretion.

The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Goodwin Liu finds mootness because, “[a]lthough a jurisdictional finding that a parent engaged in abuse or neglect of a child is generally stigmatizing, complaining of ‘stigma’ alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal. The stigma must be paired with some effect on the plaintiff’s legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision.” The father’s potential future inclusion on the California Child Abuse Central Index is not enough to avoid mootness, the court says. Nonetheless, a “jurisdictional finding . . . based on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct” can be a reason for discretionary appellate review.

In a concurring opinion five years ago, Justice Liu wrote that “simply being found ‘inadequate’ as a parent, even when the parent is not at fault, can carry a painful stigma.” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 638; see here.)

This is the first opinion signed by Patricia Guerrero as chief justice. It’s also the first signed by retired Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye as a pro tem, appointed by Chief Justice Guerrero. There should be seven more of those filed between now and March 6.

The court reverses the Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal’s divided unpublished opinion. The appellate court’s majority dismissed the appeal as moot and said that discretionary review depended on a “demonstrat[ion] [of] the specific legal or practical negative consequences that will result from the jurisdictional findings.” The Supreme Court says the appellate court’s prerequisite for discretionary review is wrong and directs Division Five to look anew at the father’s request for that review. It also disapproves the Second District, Division One, opinion in In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713 and the Second District, Division Three, opinion in In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754. The Supreme Court denied a depublication request in Daisy H. There was no petition in Drake M.

[July 15 update: Supreme Court’s reversal of mootness dismissal yields Court of Appeal reversal on the merits.]