In re Luke S. CA2/7

Filed 5/30/23 In re Luke S. CA2/7 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 spec ified 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 LUKE S., a Person Coming B311414 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP00148A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAGDALENA S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed as moot.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva and Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________ Magdalena S., the mother of then 14-year-old Luke S., appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order declaring Luke a dependent child of the court and releasing him to Magdalena under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. While Magdalena’s appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and issued a juvenile court custody order granting Magdalena sole legal and physical custody of Luke. At the request of the Department, we dismissed the appeal as moot. The Supreme Court granted Magdalena’s petition for review and subsequently transferred the matter to us with directions to vacate our prior order and reconsider the cause in light of In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266. (In re Luke S. (Apr. 19, 2023, S273262.) We have done so. Because we can provide no effective relief to Magdalena—that is, relief that “‘can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status’” (In re D.P., at p. 277)—her appeal is moot. And after considering the factors identified in In re D.P., we decline to exercise our discretion to consider a moot appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The juvenile court on August 21, 2020 sustained an amended petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally) and (b)(1) (failure to protect), alleging Luke was