Justices weigh whether appellate courts should treat juvenile dependency appeals as moot when Child Abuse Central Index listing is at issue

SAN FRANCISCO — During oral argument in In re Ray S.R., the California Supreme Court considered whether parents who challenge juvenile-court jurisdiction should be allowed to pursue appeals when a sustained juvenile finding can lead to lasting placement on the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), and whether the county department must clarify whether it intends to refer the matter to the index when mootness is raised.

Sean Burley, counsel for the appellant mother, told the justices that the core issue is informational asymmetry: parents cannot know whether the county will submit a CACI referral and therefore cannot reliably show that an appeal is moot. Burley said, "All we are really asking for here is mere candor from the department," and urged the court to adopt a rule that a sustained petition containing CACI-reportable conduct should suffice to avoid a mootness dismissal unless the department rebuts that presumption.

Respondent counsel Tracey Felton Dodds, representing the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, said the department's position is narrower: when an appeal turns on a substantial-evidence challenge to whether the abuse occurred, the appeal is not moot; but in many dependency appeals that are resolved by reunification or termination of jurisdiction, the case is moot absent a continuing concrete injury. Dodds emphasized that some cases admitted on appeal present repeated, unchallenged allegations that would remain regardless of reversal and explained the administrative grievance process available to challenge a CACI listing.

Why it matters: A court rule requiring the department to disclose whether it will submit a CACI referral when mootness is raised would affect appellate practice and the due-process rights of parents. Being listed on the Child Abuse Central Index can carry collateral consequences for employment, licensing and other life opportunities; plaintiffs argued at oral argument that parents who cannot get clarity on listing are deprived of meaningful appellate review.

At argument, counsel debated practical mechanics. Appellant counsel urged that when a sustained petition contains CACI-reportable allegations, a reviewing court should presume the parent will be referred to CACI unless the department files a sworn statement to the contrary; he relied on Evidence Code section 664's presumption that a public official performs a regular duty. Respondent counsel countered that asking the department to make such a statement could itself trigger a referral or otherwise be unworkable because local agencies send CACI referrals at different points, sometimes before juvenile filings and sometimes later, and agencies must follow reporting duties. The department said it could not commit to withholding lawfully required referrals.

Both sides agreed on a critical practical point: reversal on the jurisdictional claim would, at a minimum, open the parent's ability to seek the administrative CACI grievance process, where an administrative hearing officer and county director review the record; unsuccessful grievance results can be litigated by writ in superior court. Counsel for the mother urged that appellate courts should not be required to "speculate on the ultimate outcome of the CACI grievance hearing," but should allow reversal when the parent has shown a concrete risk of CACI listing.

No ruling was issued; the court took the matter under submission. The court's forthcoming opinion could instruct lower courts on whether and how departments must disclose potential CACI referrals in appellate proceedings and could refine the interaction between juvenile-court appeals and administrative CACI remedies.