In re Ruby S. CA2/2

Filed 9/19/23 In re Ruby S. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re RUBY S., a Person Coming B320976 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP06769A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VICTOR S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robin R. Kesler, Judge Pro Tempore. Dismissed.

Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant Victor S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services for him and his daughter, Ruby S. (born Oct. 2019). Over nine months after father filed this appeal, the juvenile court terminated his parental rights over Ruby; father did not appeal from that order. Accordingly, we dismiss father’s appeal as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging that Ruby was being neglected and emotionally abused by father and her mother (mother).1 In December 2020, DCFS filed a petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code alleging, among other things, that the parents “ha[d] a history of engaging in violent altercations in [Ruby’s] presence[,]” and that father failed to protect Ruby from mother.2 In January 2021, after father tested