gno.law

In re Matthew G. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · B263497 · 2015-11-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County · No. DK05978
Trial judge
Teresa T. Sullivan
Outcome
dismissed — Dismissed.
Area
other
Panel
Paul Turner (author), Sandy R. Kriegler, Lamar W. Baker

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Filed 11/30/15 In re Matthew G. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MATTHEW G. et al., Persons B263497 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK05978)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.M., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teresa T. Sullivan, Judge. Dismissed. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. The father, Charles M., appeals from a dispositional order in a dependency matter. While the appeal was pending, the dispositional order was vacated. This had the effect of vacating family maintenance and counseling and parenting class orders. As the father’s appeal is moot, we order its dismissal. In response to this state of affairs, the Department of Children and Family Services moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds. The father now agrees that the appeal is moot. We can provide the father no effectual relief and thus have no jurisdiction over this matter because all of his contentions are now moot. (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, 1118; 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 appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.

Cites, in this corpus