Opinion
B297862
01-23-2020
In re S.R. a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D.R., Defendant and Respondent.
Patricia G. Bell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Annie Greenleaf, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP00803A) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Dismissed. Patricia G. Bell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Annie Greenleaf, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
____________________
S.R. (child) and the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) appeal from an order of the juvenile court, which sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition under subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), finding that the child was at risk of harm due to father's physical abuse and his inappropriate behavior, which created inappropriate sexual boundaries, but dismissed the petition's allegation under subdivision (d) that father had sexually abused the child. According to the child and the Department, the evidence introduced at the jurisdictional hearing compelled a finding that father had sexually abused the child, as a matter of law.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Following the filing of the notice of appeal, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the child, finding that the conditions that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300 no longer existed, granted mother sole legal and physical custody; and limited father to monitored visits. Father has moved to dismiss the appeal. Neither the child nor the Department filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. We thus deem the child and the Department to have consented to the motion and dismiss the appeal as moot. (Cal. Rules of Court 8.54(c); see also In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.)
We grant father's request for judicial notice of the October 4, 2019, minute order.
DISPOSITION
The child's and the Department's appeals of the jurisdiction and disposition order are dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J. We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.