In re D.S. CA1/5

Filed 6/23/21 In re D.S. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, A161496

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Solano County v. Super. Ct. No. J44921) S.S., Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 S.S. (mother) appeals from a disposition order removing D.S. from her physical custody (§ 361, subd. (c)). While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court returned D.S. to mother’s custody under a family maintenance plan. Because the juvenile court has returned D.S. to mother, we cannot grant mother any effective relief and we dismiss her appeal as moot.

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the 1

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. We recite only those facts necessary to resolve the appeal. Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

BACKGROUND D.S. was born in April 2020. A few days later, the Solano County Health and Social Services Department (Department) filed—and later amended—a section 300 petition alleging, among other things, that D.S. was at substantial risk of serious harm if left in mother’s care. The court detained D.S., placed her in foster care, and ordered reunification services for mother. Mother submitted to jurisdiction; the court declared D.S. a dependent and continued mother’s reunification services. At the contested disposition hearing, the court found D.S.’s out-of-home placement was necessary and appropriate, that the Department had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove D.S. from mother’s home, and that returning D.S. to mother was contrary to D.S.’s welfare. The court continued mother’s reunification services and set a six- month status review hearing. Mother appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the juvenile court held the six-month status review hearing at which it returned D.S. to mother’s custody with family maintenance services. DISCUSSION Mother challenges the disposition order removing D.S. from her custody. The Department argues the appeal is moot because the juvenile court returned D.S. to mother at the six-month status review hearing. We agree. “ ‘An appeal may become moot where subsequent events, including orders by the juvenile court, render it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief.’ ” (In re D.N. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 741, 757.) Here, we can grant no effective relief because the juvenile court has already returned D.S. to mother’s custody. And “ ‘ “[w]hen no effective relief can be granted, an