In re L.O. CA2/3

Filed 7/9/14 In re L.O. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.O. et al., Persons Coming Under B250745 the Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT Super. Ct. No. CK96417) OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carlos Vasquez, Judge. Dismissed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

B.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders of July 9, 2013 at a six-month review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e)1 continuing jurisdiction over L., K., C., and A. (the children). She contends the orders should be reversed because it was an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court to deny her request for a contested hearing before changing the visitation order from unmonitored visits to monitored. As subsequent events prevent us from granting effective relief for the purported error, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed. On January 7, 2014, the juvenile court granted a contested 12-month review hearing, to be held on February 26, 2014. At the February 26 hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services, set the matter for a permanent plan hearing under section 366.26, and continued mother’s visitation order.2 Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, contends subsequent events have rendered the appeal moot. We agree. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.3 “ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable 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 becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective