In this case, the California Supreme Court addressed what makes a case moot and when a reviewing court can exercise discretion to decide a moot appeal. The Court found that **"stigma" alone is not enough to sustain an appeal in the dependency context**, and that the **concern about being listed on California's Child Abuse Central Index was too speculative**. However, the Court also stated that **dependency cases attach to the child and not the parents**, and that dismissals of appeals for mootness could have the undesirable result of insulating erroneous or arbitrary rulings from review. The Court suggested that there may be good reasons for the Court of Appeal to exercise its discretion to hear an appeal on the merits, even if the appeal is moot. ![[S267429.PDF]]