In re T.P. CA4/3

Filed 2/5/21 In re T.P. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re T.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G059193 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19DP0472) v. OPINION D.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Antony C. Ufland, Judge. Dismissed as moot. Request for judicial notice granted. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Deborah B. Morse, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.

In this juvenile dependency case, law enforcement took two-year-old T.P. 1 into protective custody due to physical abuse by her mother (Mother) and general neglect by D.M. (Father). Father appeals from the juvenile court’s order made at the combined six-month/12-month review hearing. Specifically, Father argues substantial evidence did not support the court’s determination T.P. would be at risk of detriment if returned to his care. He also asserts the Orange County Department of Social Services (SSA) did not comply with its inquiry and notice duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provisions found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (e) (all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated). During the pendency of this appeal, the court returned T.P. to Father’s custody. As a result, SSA argues the appeal is moot and should be dismissed. Father does not oppose SSA’s motion to dismiss. We agree with SSA and dismiss Father’s appeal. FACTS Law enforcement took T.P. into protective custody in April 2019 after Father notified authorities Mother used the force of her bodyweight to slam the child’s head into a mattress. Father intervened and escaped with T.P. T.P. sustained an indentation and abrasion on her forehead, swelling in her eyes and face, and bruises on her shins. She was treated at the hospital. Police arrested Mother. An emergency protective order was issued to protect Father and T.P. from Mother. At the detention hearing in April 2019, the juvenile court detained T.P. The court authorized supervised visitation for Father and ordered drug testing. Father denied Indian ancestry. Mother indicated she might have Indian ancestry. The juvenile court ordered the agency to investigate Mother’s heritage and to give notice to the “appropriate tribe, as to [M]other.”