In re Austin H.
Filed 1/18/07 In re Austin H. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re AUSTIN H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEBORAH H., Defendant and Appellant. | E039520 (Super.Ct.No. SWJ-004886) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert W. Nagby, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Dismissed.
Michael D. Randall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Tawny V. Lieu, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Konrad Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Deborah H. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings pertaining to her son, Austin H., and its dispositional orders removing him from her custody. During the pendency of the appeal, the juvenile court returned Austin to mother's custody and terminated dependency jurisdiction. Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) argues the appeal has therefore been rendered moot and should be dismissed. We agree.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A juvenile dependency petition initially filed in August 2005, and amended in October 2005, alleged that Austin (born December 2001) was at substantial risk of serious physical harm by reason of his parents' substance abuse, as well as acts of domestic violence in Austin's presence. Most recently, mother had been arrested for public intoxication at a Lake Elsinore Casino, and shortly thereafter the father was found passed out in a car, with an open bottle of alcohol within Austin's reach. At the trial on November 1, 2005, the court sustained the allegations, declared Austin a dependent child, removed him from his parents' custody, and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services. On mother's behalf, a notice of appeal from the court's findings and orders was filed December 16, 2005.
On May 16, 2006, a contested status review hearing was held.[1] Based upon its review of the report submitted on behalf of DPSS, the court found that both parents had successfully completed their case plans, and that â€
