Opinion
B326778
12-05-2023
In re R.M., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. S.S., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 22CCJP03720A, Tiana J. Murillo, Judge.
Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BAKER, ACTING P. J.
The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over R.M. based on its finding that she was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm. The court sustained allegations that S.S. (Mother) collided with parked cars while driving under the influence of alcohol with R.M. in the car-and did so after having previously driven under the influence of alcohol with R.M. as a passenger. The juvenile court left R.M. in Mother's care, but ordered her to participate in a 12-step program and undergo random substance abuse testing.
Mother noticed this appeal from the juvenile court's jurisdiction finding and argued the finding was infirm in light of R.M.'s age at the time of the drunk driving (17 years old) and conflicting evidence as to whether R.M. was actually in Mother's car.
During the pendency of the appeal, R.M. turned 18 years old. Following this court's initial review of the parties' submissions, we invited the parties to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the appeal was moot and should be dismissed because R.M. reached the age of majority. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services urged us to dismiss the appeal as moot and requested judicial notice of a minute order dated September 15, 2023, indicating the juvenile court had terminated dependency jurisdiction after R.M. turned 18. Mother did not file a supplemental brief.
The request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
We conclude dismissal of the appeal is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); see also In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266; In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60; In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: MOOR, J. KIM, J.