In re J.L. CA2/7
Filed 11/17/25 In re J.L. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re J.L., a Person Coming Under B341676 the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Ct. No. 24CCJP02850A) AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
F.Z.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Juan M. Valles, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed. Mary Carmel Manuel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________
F.Z. (Mother) appeals from an order asserting dependency jurisdiction over her daughter, J.L., arguing there was insufficient evidence showing J.L. was at risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. Although the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,1 it did not declare J.L. a dependent of the court and instead ordered six months of informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b). While this appeal was pending, the supervision period ended without further court involvement. Thus, the juvenile court no longer has jurisdiction over J.L., and there is no relief we can grant Mother. Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal as moot.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
J.L. was born to Mother in January 2024. J.L.’s presumed father, Je. L. (Father), is not a party to this appeal. In September 2024, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging the parents had placed then seven-month-old J.L. in danger of harm by bringing her to Father’s home where law enforcement had found, unsecured, a loaded firearm, multiple rounds of ammunition, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, and where residents were members of a violent street gang. Law enforcement and the Department discovered these conditions as part of a search warrant operation responding to an increase in gang-related shootings in the area. Mother, Father, and J.L. were present in
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)