In re M.J. CA2/1
Filed 3/1/22 In re M.J. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.J. et al., Persons B312519 Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 21LJJP00204)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARY C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Susan Ser, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________ 1 In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), Mary C. (Mother) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings against her under section 300, subdivision (b) that she failed to protect her daughters M.J. and T.J. (then eight and five years old) from their father’s conduct (inadequate supervision of the children and 2 engaging in domestic violence with Mother). While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and issued a final custody order, awarding joint legal and physical custody to Mother and Father, with the children to reside primarily with Mother. Mother has not appealed from the order terminating jurisdiction or the final custody order, and her time to do so has expired. As explained below, her appeal challenging the jurisdictional findings is moot based on these subsequent orders, which she has not challenged. Mother has advanced no specific, nonspeculative reason for us to exercise our discretion to consider this moot appeal. Accordingly we grant the motion of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to dismiss this appeal.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)