In re T.A. CA4/1 ( 2014 )

Filed 6/5/14 In re T.A. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re T.A., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
D065347
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
(Super. Ct. No. EJ3486)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
R.M. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Elizabeth A.
Riggs, Judge. Dismissed.
Christy C. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant R.M.
Patti L. Dikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant M.A.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
R.M. and M.A. are the parents of T.A., who was 17 years old when the San Diego
County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed the underlying dependency
petition. The parents appealed the juvenile court's dispositional order removing custody
of T.A. from them. The Agency moved to dismiss the appeals as moot because T.A. has
since turned 18 and the juvenile court has terminated jurisdiction over her.1 The parents
do not oppose the Agency's motion. We grant the Agency's motion and dismiss the
appeals as moot. (See In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1481, 1488 ["As a general rule,
an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in
the dependency proceedings moot."].)
DISPOSITION
The appeals are dismissed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCDONALD, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
1 We grant the Agency's request to take judicial notice of the juvenile court's
May 14, 2014, order terminating jurisdiction. (See, e.g., In re Karen G. (2004) 121
Cal. App. 4th 1384, 1390.)
2