In re R.L. CA2/5

Filed 1/30/24 In re R.L. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re R.L. et al., Persons Coming B325295 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 22CCJP02199A-B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tamara E. Hall, Judge. Dismissed. Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The parties are familiar with the facts, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261–1264 [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].) J.M. (father) appeals from juvenile court orders assuming dependency jurisdiction over his daughters, R.L. (born February 2005) and G.L. (born January 2006), based on mother’s physical abuse and father’s failure to protect, and removing both children from his custody. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) argued in its respondent’s brief that father’s appeal should be dismissed as moot with respect to R.L., because she had turned 18. Father did not address the mootness argument in his reply brief. On January 4, 2024, we invited the parties to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the appeal was moot and should be dismissed because G.L. had also reached the age of majority. The Department urged us to dismiss father’s appeal as moot. The Department attached minute orders reflecting that the juvenile court had terminated dependency jurisdiction over R.L. on March 10, 2023, and over G.L. on