In re R.M. CA2/1

Filed 7/26/23 In re R.M. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re R.M., a Person Coming Under B323512
the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP04285)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EMILY M.,
Objector and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Affirmed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________
On August 20, 2021, Emily M. (mother), who resides in
Virginia, came to California with her six-year-old daughter, R.B.,
for a vacation. While they stayed at a hotel in Marina Del Rey,
incidents led police to place mother on a psychiatric hold and
take R.B. into protective custody.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS or the department) filed a dependency
petition alleging R.B. was at risk of serious physical harm due to
mother’s inability to care for the child due to mother’s mental and
emotional problems. The juvenile court made emergency
detention findings, asserted temporary emergency jurisdiction,
and ultimately sustained the petition. The court removed R.B.
from parental custody, ordered reunification services for mother,
and ordered an expedited placement assessment on maternal
relatives in Virginia under the Interstate Compact for the
Placement of Children.
Mother appealed from the dispositional order, contending
the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
We affirmed the order, holding California may assert
jurisdiction over R.B. pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400
et seq.). (In re R.B. (B318419, May 26, 2023) [nonpub. opn.].)
At a review hearing on August 5, 2022, the juvenile court
found mother’s reunification progress to be only partial, and
continued the placement order.
2
Mother again appeals, contending on the same grounds as
in her prior appeal that the juvenile court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. She requests that the continued placement order be
vacated.
On March 14, 2023, after mother filed her appeal, the
juvenile court terminated the placement order and ordered R.B.
placed with mother in Virginia with the provision of family
maintenance services.
The department moves to dismiss the appeal, contending
the juvenile court’s latest order grants mother the relief she
seeks, rendering the appeal moot.
We agree the March 14, 2023 order has rendered this
appeal moot. We nevertheless deny Respondent’s motion to
dismiss because the juvenile court’s continued assertion of
jurisdiction means there may be a recurrence of the controversy
between the parties over that issue. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th
266, 282.)
For reasons stated in our prior opinion, we reaffirm the
court’s jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
BENDIX, Acting P. J. WEINGART, J.
3