Filed 12/18/17 In re E.R. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR


In re E.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B280277

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK86908)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

U.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.


APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Emma Castro, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, §21.) Dismissed.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


U.R. (father) appeals from the court’s order denying his request to return his son, E.R., to his custody and terminating his reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366.21 and 366.22. We dismiss father’s appeal because it has been rendered moot by further rulings in the dependency court while the appeal was pending.
In April 2015, the juvenile court sustained an amended petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), finding dependency jurisdiction over E.R. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The court removed E.R. from father’s custody. Following contested proceedings pursuant to sections 366.21, subdivisions (e) and (f), and 366.22, the court issued an order on January 11, 2017 releasing E.R. to his mother’s custody, but denying father’s request for custody and terminating father’s reunification services. Father appealed.
While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court held a review hearing on August 18, 2017. At that hearing, the court released E.R. to the custody of both father and mother and terminated dependency jurisdiction with a juvenile custody order awarding joint physical and legal custody to both parents. Father requests we take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s August 18, 2017 order; we grant that request. Father further concedes that the August 18, 2017 order renders the instant appeal moot. We agree. (See In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) We also note father does not contend that we should nevertheless address the merits of his appeal based on the potential for future prejudice. (See, e.g., In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) We therefore dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
Father’s appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS



COLLINS, J.

We concur:



WILLHITE, Acting P. J.



MANELLA, J.