In re I.P. CA2/8

Filed 1/16/24 In re I.P. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re I.P. et al., Persons Coming B326088 Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP01954A-D DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIA J.,

Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ashley Price, Commissioner. Appeal dismissed. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

The mother in this dependency case challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and orders concerning three of her four children. During the pendency of her appeal, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the three children, who had remained placed with mother throughout the proceeding. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. We agree the appeal is moot, and we decline to exercise our discretion to address mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings and orders. BACKGROUND Mother Maria J. has four children: daughter I.P., son D.P., son I.R. and daughter A.R. Her daughter I.P. is the oldest, now a teenager. The father of I.P. and D.P. is A.P.; the two youngest children have a different father, J.R.M. Neither father is a party to mother’s appeal. In May 2022, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition, and amended the petition in July 2022. The amended petition, as sustained on October 20, 2022, alleged that J.R.M., father of the two younger children, sexually abused I.P., and that mother knew of the sexual abuse and failed to protect I.P., placing her and her siblings at risk. The allegations of each of the sustained counts were identical. After describing J.R.M.’s sexual abuse, the petition alleged mother knew of the abuse and allowed J.R.M. to reside in the home and have unlimited access to I.P. “The mother has an inability to protect the child as the mother has repeatedly stated she does not believe the child was sexually abused by [J.R.M.]. Such sexual abuse of the child [I.P.] by [J.R.M.] and the mother’s failure to protect the children endangers [I.P.’s] physical health, safety and well-being and