In re G.L. CA4/1

Filed 1/26/26 In re G.L. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re G.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D086390 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Consolidated with Case No. AGENCY, D086741 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. Nos. NJ15686B–E) v.

M.L. et al.

Defendants and Respondents;

G.L. et al.,

Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alejandro Morales, Judge. Appeal dismissed as moot. David J. Smith, Acting County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Natasha C. Edwards, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lelah S. Forrey-Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent, M.L., Mother.

Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent, F.D., Father. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Minors, G.L. et al. At a contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court placed the four children at issue with F.D. (Father) in Guatemala, authorized their travel to Guatemala, and terminated jurisdiction with custody orders. (Welf. & Inst.

Code, § 361.2, subd. (b)(1).)1 The court stayed the orders to allow the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) time to arrange international travel for the children. (Code Civ. Proc., § 917.7.) After issuance of the disposition orders, Father informed the Agency he was not prepared to take custody of the children and would not accept them. The Agency sought reconsideration of the disposition orders under section 385. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify the disposition orders, explaining that the Agency’s remedy was to file new dependency petitions. The Agency appeals, contending the court erred by denying its