In re Ashley A. CA2/7

Filed 6/2/21 In re Ashley A. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ASHLEY A. et al., Persons B307683 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP01419A-B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JHON A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Annabelle Cortez, Judge. Dismissed. Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________________

In August 2020, having sustained an amended petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, the juvenile court declared the children, Ashley A. and Kenny A., dependents of the court, removed them from their father, Jhon A., and released them to their mother. Jhon filed this appeal challenging the removal order. On March 1, 2021 the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction with an order that awarded sole physical custody of the children to their mother and joint legal custody to her and Jhon. The court stayed its order terminating jurisdiction pending receipt of a proposed juvenile custody order, which the court received, signed, and filed on March 8, 2021. Jhon did not appeal from the order terminating jurisdiction. “An order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction generally renders an appeal from an earlier order moot. [Citations.] ‘[T]he critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error.’” (In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 163; see In re J.P. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 616, 623 [a dependency “‘“appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief”’”]; In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 436 [“[a]n appeal may become moot where subsequent events, including orders by the juvenile court, render it impossible for the reviewing court to