In re A.R. CA2/5

Filed 3/16/16 In re A.R. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the B266268 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK11338)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIFFANY D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Rudolph Diaz, Judge. Dismissed. Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Julia Roberson, Senior Associate County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Tiffany D. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order of June 23, 2015, denying her request to terminate dependency jurisdiction over her daughter A. R., following entry of a judgment declaring the child a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3601 and an order placing the child in home-of-parent-mother. The matter was continued to December 18, 2015, for a judicial review under section 364 to determine, among other things, whether court supervision is still necessary. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her request to terminate jurisdiction at the June 23 hearing, in that substantial evidence does not support the finding that juvenile court jurisdiction was necessary to protect the child’s physical and emotional well-being. At the hearing on December 18, 2015,2 the court found under section 364 that “continued jurisdiction is necessary because conditions exist which justify jurisdiction under [section] 300, [section] 364, subdivision (c).”3 The court continued the matter to March 21, 2016, for another review hearing under section 364. We conclude the December 18, 2015, findings and orders rendered the contention moot.4 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. “‘[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.