In re M.S. CA1/3

Filed 12/30/13 In re M.S. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION 3

In re M.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, A138189 Plaintiff, Appellant, and (Lake County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JV 320327) v. D.S., Defendant and Appellant; B.S., Defendant and Respondent.

In this dependency case, two appeals have been taken from the juvenile court’s order at the six-month review hearing. The Lake County Department of Social Services (the Department) has appealed on the ground that the court erroneously extended services to the 12-month review, and the mother, B.S., has appealed on the ground that the court erroneously limited her visits to supervised visits. At this point, the 12-month review has already occurred and custody of the minor has been returned to the minor’s father, D.S. A new supervised visitation order has been entered with respect to the mother. Prior to the submission of father’s responding brief, father moved to dismiss the Department’s appeal as moot. Although the juvenile court’s order at the six-month hearing had already become moot as to the parties in this case, we denied the motion without prejudice based

1

largely on the Department’s assertion that the case presented an important legal issue likely to recur without appellate intervention. Respondent father’s brief, however, corrected the misapprehension underlying the Department’s appeal, and the Department has chosen not to submit a reply. Since the order that is the subject of this appeal has been superseded by subsequent orders, and there is no reason to believe that the Department’s misunderstanding is widespread, we shall dispense with the two appeals rather summarily. The petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 with respect to then two-month-old M.S. was filed on April 9, 2012. The petition alleged, among many other things, that the mother, D.S., had untreated mental health issues and a history of substance abuse, that although services had been offered to her she continued to lack basic parenting skills and on several occasions had exhibited poor judgment in caring for the infant, placing M.S. at risk of harm, that both parents had exposed the minor to domestic violence in the home and that, despite obtaining a restraining order against father, mother had permitted father to enter the home where they engaged in both sexual activity and physical altercations, and that the father failed to protect the minor from the mother although he knew of her “substance abuse issues and mental health instability.” Temporary custody was removed from both parents at a detention hearing on April 13, 2012. On May 7, mother stipulated to jurisdiction and the court sustained certain of the allegations as to father. At the June 11, 2012 disposition hearing, the court confirmed that B.S. is the biological and presumed father of M.S., ordered continued temporary placement of the minor with the Department, and ordered reunification services for both parents. A contested six-month review hearing began on January 16, 2013, extended over several sessions, and concluded with the court’s order delivered from the bench on