In re Destiny G. CA2/7

Filed 3/14/16 In re Destiny G. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re DESTINY G., a Person Coming B265248 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK72627) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry Truong, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

In this dependency appeal concerning his daughter Destiny G., G.G.1 appeals from the court’s finding at the six-month review hearing that the Department of Children and Family Services provided him with reasonable services. We conclude that G.G.’s appeal has been rendered moot by subsequent events and dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Seven-year-old Destiny G. came to the attention of DCFS in April 2014 when both her parents were incarcerated. DCFS detained Destiny G. in the home of her paternal grandparents and, on April 10, 2014, filed a petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 In an amended petition filed in late April 2014, DCFS alleged that Destiny G. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), on the grounds that both her parents were incarcerated and illicit drug users who were incapable of providing regular care for her. On May 15, 2014, the juvenile court determined that Destiny G. was a child within its jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). G.G. was given reunification services. G.G. was ordered to complete a substance abuse program and to undergo parenting education and individual counseling. The six-month status hearing under section 366.21, subdivision (e) was set for November 13, 2014. In advance of that hearing, DCFS produced a status review report for the juvenile court. In that report, DCFS advised the court that it had not provided any reunification services to G.G. DCFS explained that G.G. remained incarcerated and that the social worker had not been in contact with him. “It has been difficult to contact the father during his incarceration to discuss his court ordered programs,” DCFS told the juvenile court. DCFS had mailed a letter to G.G. but had received no response. A social worker was said to be “in the process of trying to reach” G.G.’s counselor. DCFS also