Filed 4/26/17 In re J.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 J.G., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
L.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
B277597
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. DK14720)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robin R. Kesler, Referee. Dismissed.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis,
Assistant County Counsel and Tracey M. Blount, Deputy County
Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent
_________________________________
The mother, Lidia P., 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.
On July 28, 2016, the juvenile court issued the dispositional
order. The juvenile court ordered the child, Jade G., removed
from the mother’s custody. The court ordered the child be in the
mother’s home. On January 30, 2017, the juvenile court
terminated jurisdiction and ordered the child returned to the
mother’s custody. We agree 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.) The
argument that the orders in this case may have “sever and
unfair” consequences in future dependency litigation is
speculative. There is no merit to the mother’s argument the
appeal is not moot because she may once again in the future be
the subject to dependency litigation.
3
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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.