Filed 10/28/14 In re Nathan H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 NATHAN H., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B255718

 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. 

 No. DK03215)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NORA V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Julie 

Blackshaw, Judge. Dismissed. 

Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

Richard D. Weiss, Acting County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County 

Counsel, Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

______________________
2

Nora V. (mother) appeals from the dependency court’s April 4, 2014 jurisdictional 

findings declaring Nathan H. a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code

section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b).1 Mother also appeals from the court’s dispositional 

order requiring B.G. (stepfather) to live outside of the family home while participating in 

drug rehabilitation. 

While the current appeal was pending, the dependency court entered an October 1, 

2014 order terminating jurisdiction and directing that custody orders should revert back 

to the family law order in place before the dependency proceeding began. We provided 

the parties an opportunity to address whether we should take judicial notice of the court’s 

October 1, 2014 order and find mother’s appeal moot.2

“‘An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the 

occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant 

effective relief. [Citation.]’ (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054.)” 

(In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) Mother’s appeal is moot because no 

effective relief can be given on appeal. The dependency court has terminated

jurisdiction, and the dispositional order is no longer in effect. Stepfather may return to 

living in the home with mother and Nathan. Mother has not identified any prejudice the

jurisdictional findings or the dispositional order may cause her in later dependency or 

family law proceedings. Taking judicial notice of the October 1, 2014 minute order

(Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d)), we dismiss mother’s appeal.

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless 

otherwise indicated.

2 The court sent a letter on October 6, 2014, inviting counsel to file letter briefs, 

and counsel for the Department and for mother promptly filed letter briefs on October 8, 

2014. 
3

DISPOSITION

The appeal of the April 4, 2014 jurisdictional findings and dispositional order is 

dismissed as moot. 

KRIEGLER, J. 

We concur: 

TURNER, P. J.

GOODMAN, J.*

 

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.