Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County Nos. DP022794 & DP022795, Gary G. Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Julie J. Agin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
O’LEARY, P. J.
A.D. (Mother) appeals from the order made at the review hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 at which her two children were ordered to continue under supervision of the juvenile court. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
We need not provide great detail about this matter. In 2008, in a proceeding in the Riverside County juvenile court, then 10-year-old M.D. and seven-year-old D.D. were declared dependent children due to abuse and general neglect resulting from Mother’s ongoing mental health issues. The children’s father’s whereabouts has remained unknown. The children were released to Mother, and in 2009, dependency jurisdiction was terminated.
In May 2011, a second dependency petition was filed in Riverside County, again due to Mother’s recurrent mental health issues. In August 2011, the children were declared dependent children, removed from Mother’s custody, and reunification services were ordered. In February 2012, the court ordered the children remain under juvenile court supervision for another six months and allowed Mother liberal unsupervised visitation. In June 2012, the Riverside County juvenile court returned the children to Mother’s custody under continued supervision and transferred the case to Orange County.
At a contested six-month review hearing held on January 17, 2013, the juvenile court ordered the children remain under supervision for another six months, and set a six-month review hearing for July 17, 2013. Mother timely appeals from this order.
The Orange County Social Services Agency has filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s appeal of the January 17, 2013, order as moot. Mother has not filed any opposition. The motion to dismiss is accompanied by a copy of the order from the six-month review hearing held on July 17, 2013, at which the juvenile court terminated this dependency proceeding. The time for appeal from that order has passed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1) [60 days].) Although County Counsel did not specifically request that we augment the record on appeal and take judicial notice of the order (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.155 & 8.252(c)), we do so on our own motion because the order demonstrates the appeal is moot and must be dismissed. (See generally In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676.)
As a general matter, an appeal is moot where it is no longer possible for the appellate court to grant appellant effective relief. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) Because the children have been returned to Mother’s custody and the juvenile court has entered an order terminating dependency jurisdiction, Mother’s appeal has become moot. (In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330 [upon termination of juvenile court jurisdiction, there is no longer an ongoing dependency proceeding to be impacted by an appellate court order]; see also In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316 [when no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: FYBEL, J., THOMPSON, J.