Filed 9/19/18 In re R.P. CA2/3
not to be published in the official reports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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re R.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B288049 |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.P., Defendant and Respondent; R.P., a Minor, etc., Objector and Appellant. | Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK50282C
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nichelle L. Blackwell, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed.
Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
_______________________________________
Minor R.P. appeals from the juvenile court’s January 19, 2018, order continuing family reunification services for her father, R.P. We conclude the appeal is moot and dismiss it.
Minor filed an opening brief in this court on April 16, 2018. On April 23, 2018, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) notified us by letter that because it had recommended the court terminate father’s reunification services below, it would not appear as a respondent in minor’s appeal. Because father would have been prejudiced by a reversal of the January 19, 2018, order, we provided him with an opportunity to file a respondent’s brief. We did not receive a response.
On July 20, 2018, while this appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated father’s reunification services. On August 6, 2018, we notified the parties by letter that we intended to take judicial notice of that fact and invited them to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the order mooted the appeal.[1] Father did not respond, but minor and the Department advised us that the appeal is moot and should be dismissed.
We agree that the court’s July 20, 2018, order terminating father’s reunification services provided the remedy minor sought and thereby mooted the appeal. “ ‘[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.’ ” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
LAVIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
EDMON, P. J.
EGERTON, J.
[1] As no party has objected, we hereby take judicial notice of the following facts: (1) on July 20, 2018, the juvenile court held a 12-month review hearing in this case; (2) at that hearing, the court terminated father’s reunification services. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subds. (b), (d).)
