In re D.N. CA2/1

Filed 3/11/21 In re D.N. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re D.N., a Person Coming B307688 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK99900)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas E. Grodin, Temporary Judge. Appeal dismissed. Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

For the reasons detailed below, we dismiss this appeal as moot. Although this family has had multiple proceedings in the dependency court, we limit our discussion of the factual and procedural background to those facts and proceedings pertinent to this appeal. During the proceedings below, the juvenile court asserted juvenile dependency jurisdiction over D.N. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) on the ground that D.N.’s mother (mother) inappropriately physically disciplined D.N. by striking him with a belt, and the court later sustained a petition under section 342 on account of mother’s substance abuse. (See In re D.N. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 741, 744–745 (D.N. I).)2 Subsequently, the juvenile court issued a ruling sustaining a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387 alleging, inter alia, that D.N.’s father (father) threatened physically to abuse the child; removing D.N. from mother’s and father’s custody; and requiring the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to provide reunification services to father. (See D.N. I, at pp. 745–747.)