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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 2 1CCJP0 4285 )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

P laintiff and Respondent,

v.

E MILY M

. ,
Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III

, Judge

. A ffirmed

. 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.

___________________________________ O n 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 stay ed at a hotel in Marina Del R e y , incidents led p olice to place mother on a psychiatric hold and
take R.B. into protective custody.
T he 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 pla cement 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 ) [ n onpub. o pn.].) 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 a ppeals , contending on the same grounds as in her prior appeal that the juvenile court lacke d 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
th e juvenile court’s latest order grants mother the relief she seeks, render ing 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. (20 2 3) 14 Cal.5 th 266, 282.) For reasons stated in our prior opinion, we reaffirm th e
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.