Filed 4/26/17 In re Bryan P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 BRYAN P. et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BEATRIZ C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
B277307
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. DK05104)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Teresa Sullivan, Judge. Dismissed.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis,
Assistant County Counsel and Brian Mahler, Senior Associate
County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent
_________________________________
The mother, Beatriz C., has appealed from the dispositional
order in a dependency case. The Department of Children and
Family Services has moved to dismiss the mother’s appeal. We
agree the appeal is moot and order dismissal.
The dispositional order directed that the family be subject
to six months of informal supervision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 360,
subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(a)(2).) The six months of
informal supervision have now elapsed and the parties agree no
new dependency proceedings have been instituted. Thus, the
appeal is moot as there is no effectual relief we can provide to the
mother. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for
the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; In re B.L. (2012) 204
Cal.App.4th 1111, 1117; In re Melissa R. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th
24, 34; In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1240-1241; In re
Karen G. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390; In re Albert G.
(2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 135; In re Dani R. (2001) 89
Cal.App.4th 402, 405-406; In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th
1313, 1315-1316.)
We reject the mother’s arguments that we should decide
the appeal on its merits. The mother argues we have the
inherent authority to decide a moot case. Among the
circumstances where the merits of an otherwise moot appeal may
be decided are where there are issues of public importance
present or recurring legal questions. None is present here.
Further, an appeal may not be moot if the challenged orders
3
would adversely affect the mother in future dependency
proceedings. The mother’s arguments that the issues she raises
here about the jurisdictional order may have some unspecified
future adverse impact in presently uncontemplated and unfiled
dependency proceedings is speculative.
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
KRIEGLER, J.
DUNNING, J. 


Judge of the Orange Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.