In re A.G. CA2/4

Filed 12/10/24 In re A.G. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

In re A.G., a Person Coming B328990 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 22CCJP05027

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Ariana G.

Defendant and Appellant; A.G., Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Dismissed. Lillian Hamrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Deborah Dentler for A.G., a Person Formerly Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Memorandum Opinion

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion as the parties are familiar with the facts, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261–1264; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) Ariana G. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court exit order awarding Antonio G. (father) sole legal custody of their two children, J.G. and A.G. Mother’s challenge on appeal focuses solely on A.G. A.G., however, reached the age of 18 while mother’s appeal was pending and therefore is no longer under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction nor subject to custody by either parent. On August 26, 2024, we invited the parties to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the appeal was moot and should be dismissed because A.G. had reached the age of majority. Minor’s counsel submitted the matter to this court on the briefing and the record. In her letter brief, mother contends her appeal is not moot because she “‘has demonstrated a specific legal or practical consequence that will be averted upon reversal.’” Namely, mother contends the outcome of this appeal “may infect future dependency proceedings involving her two younger children.” “‘[T]he critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error.’” (In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 163; see In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) An “‘appeal may become moot where subsequent events . . . render it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief.’” (In re Rashad D., at p. 163.) “A reviewing court must ‘“decide on a case-by-case basis whether