Background
In re A.H. is an unpublished memorandum opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, filed October 26, 2026, in case B349874. The case arises under the Juvenile Court Law. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services appeared as plaintiff and respondent through the County Counsel, while Andrew H., the father and defendant and appellant, appeared in pro per. The appeals challenged orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Judge, in case No. 24LJJP00401, concerning two of Father's children. The opinion is not certified for publication under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115.
Father's opening brief referenced only dependency court orders made on August 18, 2025, but he filed two notices of appeal identifying different orders. The first, filed October 16, 2025, listed orders made on October 15 and 16, 2025; the second, filed November 3, 2025, listed only orders made at an October 31, 2025 hearing. The juvenile court had partially restated some of the August 18, 2025 orders on October 16 and 31, 2025, which prompted the appellate court to consider whether the brief could be construed as challenging those later reiterations.
The Court of Appeal framed its review around the limited scope of appellate jurisdiction: jurisdiction on appeal is confined to the notice of appeal and the judgment or order appealed from, and liberal construction does not apply where a notice is so specific that it cannot be read as reaching an order not mentioned at all. Because neither notice mentioned the August 18, 2025 orders, the court concluded it had no jurisdiction over any appeal from those orders.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the August 18, 2025 orders because neither notice of appeal mentioned them. Although notices of appeal are liberally construed, that policy does not permit a specific notice to reach an order not mentioned at all. The court therefore dismissed Father's appeals of the August 18, 2025 orders without reaching their merits.
As to the October 16 and 31, 2025 orders, which partially restated the August 18 orders, the court assumed the opening brief could be read as challenging them but found the brief lacked any factual summary, record citations, or cogent legal argument. Father's substantial-evidence challenge to the children's placement and visitation orders failed because an appellant must set forth all material evidence on the point, not merely his own evidence, and the appellate court is not required to search the record for information the appellant omitted. The court exercised its discretion to deem any appeal of the October 16 and 31, 2025 orders abandoned, justifying dismissal of the appeal.
In a footnote, the court denied Father's motion to augment the record. The attached text messages were not shown to have been before the juvenile court when it made its orders, and augmentation cannot supplement the record with materials not before the trial court; the request concerning the December 27, 2024 nursing notes was moot because those notes were already in the appellate record. The disposition states: 'The appeals are dismissed.'
Key Takeaways
- A notice of appeal that specifically lists other orders cannot be liberally construed to include an August 18, 2025 order it never mentions, so the court lacked jurisdiction over those orders.
- The court dismissed the challenges to the August 18, 2025 orders for lack of appellate jurisdiction rather than deciding their merits.
- A substantial-evidence challenge requires a complete factual summary and all material evidence on the point, including evidence unfavorable to the appellant, not merely the appellant's own evidence.
- Because the opening brief articulated no cognizable argument, the court deemed any appeal of the October 16 and 31, 2025 orders abandoned and dismissed the appeal.
- Augmentation cannot add materials not before the juvenile court when it ruled, and the nursing-note request was moot because the appellate record already contained that document.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves the appeals on jurisdictional and briefing grounds without reviewing the substance of the dependency court's placement or visitation decisions. It carefully distinguishes dismissal of the August 18, 2025 challenges for lack of jurisdiction from the discretionary dismissal of any later-order challenges as abandoned, and it leaves the underlying dependency orders undisturbed.
The ruling also separates the appellate disposition from the denied augmentation motion: materials not before the juvenile court could not be added to the record on appeal, while the nursing-note request required no relief because the record already contained that document.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket