Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
T.C. filed petitions to establish a parental relationship and for custody and support on January 4, 2008, when L.G. was just under six months old. The Santa Clara County Superior Court entered judgment in May 2008. T.C. and L.G.'s father, C.G., then participated in numerous proceedings over the next 17 and a half years, including custody and support hearings, restraining-order matters, fee requests, a contempt hearing, and discovery disputes. The register of actions spanned 180 pages and more than 2,000 events and filings through September 10, 2025.
On March 11, 2025, T.C. sought to modify custody and visitation when L.G. was 17 years and seven months old. The trial court held a hearing on May 5, 2025, and issued findings and an order after hearing on June 17. T.C. filed two notices of appeal on June 5: one concerning a June 11, 2020 order, apparently involving attorney's fees and costs, and another concerning the May 5, 2025 custody and visitation minute order. She did not file a notice of appeal specifically directed to the formal June 17 order.
After the Court of Appeal ordered T.C. to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely or taken from a nonappealable order, it dismissed the appeal from the 2020 order as duplicative of appeal No. H053147 and untimely under rule 8.104(a). It deferred ruling on the second notice of appeal until considering the merits. Both parties were self-represented, and the court noted deficiencies in their record citations and attachments. It declined to take judicial notice of a protective order attached to C.G.'s brief because doing so was unnecessary to resolve the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not decide T.C.'s claims that the trial court erred by failing to provide a court reporter or electronic recording for the May 2025 hearing and by finding that she had been adequately served despite refusing electronic service. It explained that those arguments were ultimately beside the point because L.G. turned 18 in July 2025. Under Family Code sections 2010(b) and 3022 and the cited decisions, the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction over custody and visitation was limited to the parties' minor children.
Once L.G. reached the age of majority, he was no longer subject to the trial court's custody and visitation orders. The Court of Appeal therefore could not grant effective relief concerning either the May 5 minute order or the June 17 order after hearing, even to the extent the latter might be encompassed by T.C.'s notice of appeal. Applying the principle that a question becomes moot when events during an appeal prevent effectual relief, the court concluded that nothing remained to be appealed. C.G. had raised mootness in his respondent's brief, but T.C.'s reply did not address it.
The disposition dismissed the appeal as moot and awarded respondent C.G., as the prevailing party, his costs on appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2). The ruling resolved the custody-and-visitation appeal on mootness grounds rather than deciding the recording and service issues. The separate appeal concerning the 2020 order had already been dismissed, and the opinion did not revive or decide that dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A California trial court's custody and visitation jurisdiction over the parties' child ends when the child reaches adulthood under the authorities applied here.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because L.G.'s eighteenth birthday made effective relief impossible, not because it rejected T.C.'s recording and service arguments on their merits.
- The court treated the potential inclusion of the June 17, 2025 order in the notice of appeal as immaterial because that order was equally moot.
- T.C. had an opportunity to respond to C.G.'s mootness argument but did not address it in her reply brief.
- C.G. was awarded costs on appeal as the prevailing party under rule 8.278(a)(2).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a child reaching the age of majority can moot an otherwise pending custody and visitation appeal. Even unresolved procedural complaints about the hearing or service cannot sustain such an appeal when the appellate court cannot provide effective relief concerning the child's custody or visitation.
The opinion also separates the mootness dismissal from the earlier dismissal of the challenge to the 2020 order. Its substantive result is confined to the remaining custody-and-visitation appeal, with costs awarded to C.G.; it does not establish that T.C.'s underlying recording or service contentions were correct or incorrect.