Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HJ08009490
NEEDHAM, J.
Sixteen-year-old A.B. was declared a dependent child of the juvenile court based on allegations found true under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (g). C.N. (mother) appeals from the dispositional order returning A.B. to the care of her father, who had been the custodial parent for more than 12 years. Mother alleges in her opening brief that the court abused its discretion because, among other things, father had been uncooperative with respondent the Alameda County Social Services Agency (SSA) and had failed to obtain necessary medical and mental health treatment for A.B. SSA has filed a respondent’s brief urging this court to uphold the dispositional order, noting that it was consistent with A.B.’s wishes.
While this appeal was pending, A.B. turned 18 and the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over the case. We requested supplemental briefing from the parties about the effect of these events. Both mother and SSA agree the appeal is now moot.
Mother anticipated this issue in her opening brief, which was filed before A.B.’s eighteenth birthday.
We generally must dismiss an appeal as moot if the occurrence of subsequent events makes it impossible to grant effective relief. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; Ebensteiner Co. v. ChadmarGroup (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178-1179.) Here, the relief sought by mother is the removal of A.B. from her father’s custody. It impossible to grant that relief because A.B. is now an adult no longer subject to juvenile court supervision, and she may choose where she will live. Although the juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a dependent child until he or she reaches 21 years of age (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 303, 391), the court in this case did not elect to do so, and mother has not appealed from the order terminating dependency jurisdiction. (See In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 134-135 [termination of dependency jurisdiction and adoption by other family member rendered moot appeal from the denial of aunt’s motion for modification]; In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 329 [father’s appeal from disposition order placing children with mother and limiting his contact was dismissed as moot after juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over minors].)
Mother has not raised any issues on appeal that survive the juvenile court’s termination of jurisdiction. (Contrast In re Hirenia C. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 504, 517-518 [issues of visitation and denial of de facto parent petition were still “ ‘live’ ” controversies after dependency court terminated jurisdiction and granted adoption petition].) Nor does this case present any recurring issues of broad public interest that make it appropriate to address the appeal on its merits. (Contrast In re Laurie S. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 195, 199.)
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
We concur. JONES, P. J., BRUINIERS, J.