In re L.S. CA5

Filed 2/1/16 In re L.S. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re L.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F071452 HUMAN SERVICES, (Fresno Super. Ct. Nos. 05CEJ300063-3, 05CEJ300063-6, 05CEJ300063-7, Plaintiff and Respondent, 05CEJ300063-8) v. OPINION MARY H., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brian M. Arax, Judge. Mara L. Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and David F. Rodriguez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

Appellant Mary H. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order granting a petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 filed by the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) asking the juvenile court to modify her visits with her four sons by changing them from unsupervised to supervised visits. She contends the juvenile court erred in granting the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We conclude mother’s appeal is moot in light of the juvenile court’s subsequent visitation order, which mother did not contest. We dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Mother’s four sons were taken into protective custody by the department in December 2013, after she was arrested for domestic violence with her live-in boyfriend, O.C. At the time, the boys ranged in age from five to 13 years. In March 2014, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the boys and ordered reunification services for mother. The court ordered reasonable supervised visitation and granted the department discretion to increase mother’s visits to unsupervised, liberal, and extended visits. The department placed the boys in foster care. The juvenile court continued reunification services for mother up to the 18-month review hearing, which it scheduled for May 2015. During the reunification period, mother progressed to unsupervised visitation three times. Each time, the department subsequently filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to reinstate supervised visitation. The first petition, filed in July 2014, was prompted by mother having unauthorized contact with her oldest son. The court granted the petition and mother resumed supervised visitation. In late July 2014, the department approved unsupervised visitation for mother and scheduled her first unsupervised visit for August 9, 2014. Following that visit, mother’s oldest son told his foster mother that O.C. was living with