Filed 7/26/23 In re R.M. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 ONE

In re R.M., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B323512

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP04285)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EMILY M.,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________

On August 20, 2021, Emily M. (mother), who resides in 

Virginia, came to California with her six-year-old daughter, R.B.,

for a vacation. While they stayed at a hotel in Marina Del Rey, 

incidents led police to place mother on a psychiatric hold and 

take R.B. into protective custody.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (DCFS or the department) filed a dependency 

petition alleging R.B. was at risk of serious physical harm due to 

mother’s inability to care for the child due to mother’s mental and 

emotional problems. The juvenile court made emergency 

detention findings, asserted temporary emergency jurisdiction, 

and ultimately sustained the petition. The court removed R.B. 

from parental custody, ordered reunification services for mother, 

and ordered an expedited placement assessment on maternal 

relatives in Virginia under the Interstate Compact for the 

Placement of Children.

Mother appealed from the dispositional order, contending 

the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

We affirmed the order, holding California may assert 

jurisdiction over R.B. pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody 

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 

et seq.). (In re R.B. (B318419, May 26, 2023) [nonpub. opn.].)

At a review hearing on August 5, 2022, the juvenile court 

found mother’s reunification progress to be only partial, and 

continued the placement order.
3

Mother again appeals, contending on the same grounds as 

in her prior appeal that the juvenile court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction. She requests that the continued placement order be 

vacated.

On March 14, 2023, after mother filed her appeal, the 

juvenile court terminated the placement order and ordered R.B. 

placed with mother in Virginia with the provision of family 

maintenance services. 

The department moves to dismiss the appeal, contending 

the juvenile court’s latest order grants mother the relief she 

seeks, rendering the appeal moot.

We agree the March 14, 2023 order has rendered this 

appeal moot. We nevertheless deny Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss because the juvenile court’s continued assertion of 

jurisdiction means there may be a recurrence of the controversy

between the parties over that issue. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th

266, 282.)

For reasons stated in our prior opinion, we reaffirm the 

court’s jurisdiction.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

BENDIX, Acting P. J. WEINGART, J.