In re M v. CA2/3

Filed 4/3/14 In re M.V. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re M.V et al., Persons Coming Under B250522 the Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT Super. Ct. No. CK76752) OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHELLE A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline Lewis, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed. Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Michelle A. (mother) appeals from an order of July 5, 2013 denying, without a hearing, her June 18, 2013 Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition1 for return of M.V., D.V., R.V., A.V., and M.A.V. or unmonitored weekend overnight visits.2 She contends the order was an abuse of discretion in that the petition made a prima facie showing requiring a hearing on the merits of the petition. She asks this court to reverse the order and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the section 388 petition. Subsequently, on October 3, 2013, mother filed another section 388 petition, requesting the same relief that she requested in her June 18 petition. On October 10, 2013, the dependency court ordered a contested evidentiary hearing to be held on the October 3 petition.3 These subsequent events have rendered the issue moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.4 “ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justifiable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.’ (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 642, p. 669.)” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.) (Accord, In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054 [“An appeal