In re Kyle G. CA2/1

Filed 5/20/22 In re Kyle G. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 KYLE G., B313645

a Person Coming Under the (Los Angeles County Juvenile Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP00891)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANCESCA S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martha Matthews, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.),1 Francesca S. (Mother) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) that her conduct posed a substantial risk of harm to her 12-year-old son, Kyle G. While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and awarded Mother sole physical custody of Kyle, together with shared legal custody and only monitored visitation to the father.2 As explained below, because Mother has not appealed from the custody order terminating jurisdiction, her appeal is moot. Although Mother claims otherwise, the record does not support our discretionary review of the limited jurisdictional finding raised on this appeal. Her family has an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and the evidence involving Mother’s behavior will remain part of the dependency court record regardless of how we rule. And, although it is possible there will