Filed 3/18/21 In re Charlotte E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 the Matter of CHARLOTTE E., a

Person Coming Under Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B304125

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 18CCJP02656A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RACHEL E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

CHARLOTTE E., a Minor, etc.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore. 

Dismissed.
2

Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Minor and Respondent.

__________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

The parties in this case are appellant mother Rachel E. 

and her respondent daughter Charlotte E.1 Charlotte was 

detained from Mother in April 2018 and placed with her 

maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. Mother was 

granted monitored visits, and Charlotte’s maternal 

grandfather (MGF) was later approved as a monitor.

In December 2019, upon an oral request by Charlotte’s 

counsel, the court ordered that MGF no longer be permitted 

to monitor visits, and that future visits take place at a DCFS 

office. Mother appealed the order, arguing the court abused 

its discretion in granting Charlotte’s request, both because 

the court should have required Charlotte to file a petition 

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 before 

changing the parameters of visitation, and because the 

evidence did not support the ordered change.

In October 2020, after Mother filed her opening brief, 

the court placed Charlotte in a legal guardianship with her 

grandmother and step-grandfather and terminated 

jurisdiction. Charlotte argued that the termination of 

1 Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children 

and Family Services (DCFS) declined to file a brief.
3

jurisdiction mooted Mother’s appeal. Mother filed a letter 

expressly declining to file a reply brief. We agree with 

Charlotte and dismiss Mother’s appeal as moot.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

In April 2018, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of 

Charlotte (born October 2016) containing three counts under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1),

and two counts under section 300, subdivision (j). The 

counts alleged that Mother’s substance abuse and mental 

health issues endangered Charlotte, and noted that 

Charlotte’s brother Joshua (born November 2005) was a 

prior dependent of the court due to these problems, and had 

received permanent placement services. Charlotte was 

detained from Mother and eventually placed with her 

maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. Mother was 

granted monitored visits, and MGF was subsequently

approved as a monitor. 

At a permanency planning hearing in December 2019, 

Charlotte’s counsel requested that MGF no longer be 

permitted to monitor Mother’s visits, and that all future 

visits be conducted at a DCFS office. The request was based 

on the discovery, following a monitored visit, of a cigarette 

lighter in Charlotte’s backpack. Mother denied the lighter 

was hers and objected to the request.2 The court ordered 

2 Charlotte’s counsel also noted the presence in the child’s 

backpack of handwritten notes suggesting Mother had been 

“coaching” her.
4

that all future visits take place at a DCFS office, and that 

MGF no longer serve as a monitor. 

In January 2020, Mother appealed the “Order 

restricting visitation to a DCFS location and removing MGF 

as a monitor for visits.” In June 2020, Mother filed her 

opening brief. In October 2020, the juvenile court placed 

Charlotte in a legal guardianship with the maternal 

grandmother and step-grandfather and terminated 

jurisdiction. In December 2020, we granted Charlotte’s

request to judicially notice the minute order establishing the 

legal guardianship and terminating jurisdiction. Based on 

these judicially noticed events, Charlotte argued in her 

respondent’s brief that Mother’s appeal was now moot; 

Mother filed a letter expressly declining to file a reply brief. 

DISCUSSION

Charlotte argues that because jurisdiction was 

terminated in October 2020, we can grant no effective relief. 

Mother has not contested this position, and we agree with it. 

“When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot 

and will be dismissed.” (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 

Cal.App.4th 1313, 1317; see also In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 

Cal.App.4th 326, 330 [because “no direct relief can be 

granted even were we to find reversible error, because the 

juvenile court no longer has jurisdiction and we are only 

reviewing that court’s ruling . . . [w]e hold that the appeal 

filed herein by [father] is moot”].) Accordingly, we dismiss 

the instant appeal.
5

DISPOSITION

Mother’s appeal is dismissed as moot.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 MANELLA, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

COLLINS, J.