In re Matthew G. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal

In re Matthew G. CA2/5

DecidedNovember 30, 2015

DocketB263497

StatusUnpublished

This text of In re Matthew G. CA2/5 (In re Matthew G. CA2/5) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Matthew G. CA2/5, (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 11/30/15 In re Matthew G. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re MATTHEW G. et al., Persons B263497 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK05978)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teresa T. Sullivan, Judge. Dismissed. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. The father, Charles M., appeals from a dispositional order in a dependency matter. While the appeal was pending, the dispositional order was vacated. This had the effect of vacating family maintenance and counseling and parenting class orders. As the father’s appeal is moot, we order its dismissal. In response to this state of affairs, the Department of Children and Family Services moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds. The father now agrees that the appeal is moot. We can provide the father no effectual relief and thus have no jurisdiction over this matter because all of his contentions are now moot. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; In re B.L. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1118; In re Melissa R. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 24, 34; In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1240-1241; In re Karen G. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390; In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 135; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 405-406; In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.) The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Filed 11/30/15 In re Matthew G. CA2/5 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 FIVE

In re MATTHEW G. et al., Persons B263497 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK05978)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teresa T. Sullivan, Judge. Dismissed. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. The father, Charles M., appeals from a dispositional order in a dependency matter. While the appeal was pending, the dispositional order was vacated. This had the effect of vacating family maintenance and counseling and parenting class orders. As the father’s appeal is moot, we order its dismissal. In response to this state of affairs, the Department of Children and Family Services moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds. The father now agrees that the appeal is moot. We can provide the father no effectual relief and thus have no jurisdiction over this matter because all of his contentions are now moot. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; In re B.L. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1118; In re Melissa R. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 24, 34; In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1240-1241; In re Karen G. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390; In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 135; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 405-406; In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.) The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re Matthew G. CA2/5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-matthew-g-ca25-calctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack