In re M.W. CA3
- Area
- dependency
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 12/31/13 In re M.W. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado)
In re M.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C072950 Court Law.
EL DORADO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. HUMAN SERVICES, SDP20120019, SDP20120021, & SDP20120022) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.B., Defendant and Appellant.
On August 22, 2012, the juvenile court, in connection with these dependency proceedings brought on behalf of the minors, found Valarie B. to be the presumed parent of minors M.W., Ja.W., and D.W. Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate in case No. C071961 challenging the juvenile court’s August 22, 2012, order declaring Valarie B. the minors’ presumed parent. Appellant also filed the instant appeal from the dispositional hearing on January 9, 2013.
1 The sole issue raised by appellant in this appeal is the juvenile court’s order declaring Valarie B. the minors’ presumed parent. Appellant contends the order was erroneous and must be vacated. On November 20, 2013, this court filed its opinion in case No. C071961, directing the juvenile court to vacate that portion of its August 22, 2012, order which declared Valarie B. the presumed parent of minors M.W., Ja.W., and D.W. The peremptory writ and remittitur issued December 23, 2013. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal as moot.1 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
We concur:
HULL , J.
MAURO , J.
1 This issue seems noncontroversial and the court has resolved it summarily in this opinion, in the interest of judicial economy. Any party aggrieved by this procedure may petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)