Filed 5/19/17 In re A.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B278533
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK66948)


LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CRISTINA S.,

Objector and Appellant.


APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa R. Jaskol, Judge. Dismissed.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Assistant County Counsel, Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________

Cristina S. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders declaring her children, A.S. and E.S., dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). Mother contends the jurisdictional findings were erroneous because there was insufficient evidence her drug use and mental health issues placed the children at risk of suffering serious harm. She argues in the alternative that even if substantial evidence existed to support the jurisdictional findings, the dependency court abused its discretion by declaring the children dependents of the court because “no evidence showed the children suffered any physical harm as a result of mother’s drug use and mental health issues.”
On March 1, 2017 (after mother’s opening brief on appeal was filed), the dependency court entered (and stayed) an order terminating jurisdiction pending the receipt of a juvenile court order giving the mother and father (Erik S.) joint legal custody of the children, with sole physical custody to mother. On March 3, 2017, the dependency court, after receiving the custody order, lifted the stay and terminated jurisdiction.
On March 14, 2017, the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the orders terminating jurisdiction rendered the appeal moot. Mother filed an opposition to the motion on March 29, 2017. We grant the Department’s motion to dismiss.
“As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488 (C.C.).) “[N]o direct relief can be granted even were we to find reversible error, [if] the juvenile court no longer has jurisdiction and we are only reviewing that court’s ruling.” (In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330 (Michelle M.).) “However, dismissal for mootness in such circumstances is not automatic, but ‘must be decided on a case-by-case basis.’ [Citations.]” (C.C., supra, at p. 1488.)
The termination of dependency court jurisdiction rendered mother’s appellate issues moot. We can give no effective relief to mother because there is no ongoing proceeding in the dependency court. (Michelle M., supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 329.) Moreover, there are no extraordinary circumstances that compel us to resolve mother’s claims. The question of the whether there was sufficient evidence to support the dependency court’s finding pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), or whether the dependency court abused its discretion by declaring the children dependents of the court, are not of public importance or capable of repetition yet evading review. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404 [court has discretion to review only if issue is “of continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review”].)
Although mother was ultimately awarded sole physical (and joint legal) custody upon termination of jurisdiction, she is concerned the dependency court’s jurisdictional findings and orders could impact future dependency proceedings. Such a scenario is too speculative to persuade us that her appellate claims should be decided. (See Michelle. M., supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 329.)


DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.


KRIEGLER, Acting P.J.


We concur:



BAKER, J.



LANDIN, J.