In re D.F.

Respondent appealed from the trial court’s refusal to hear her motion for unsupervised visitation with her minor son on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider that question during the pendency of respondent’s appeal from the trial court’s prior adjudicatory findings. The appellate court granted respondent’s petition for leave to appeal the refusal and concurrently revested the trial court with limited jurisdiction to hear the motion, which it then considered and granted. This rendered the pending appeal moot, but respondent urged the court to nonetheless consider the question of the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction in child protection cases under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. The appellate court did so and agreed with the respondent that not only does the trial court have continuing jurisdiction in child protection cases but the duty, during the pendency of an appeal, to exercise its jurisdiction. (ODEN JOHNSON and MITCHELL, concurring)