In re S.D. CA2/6

Opinion

Filed 6/18/26 In re S.D. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re S.D., A Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B349845 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 24JD-00036-01) _____________________________ (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent,

v.

N.D.,

Appellant.

Appellant N.D. challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to S.D. after a contested Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing. We conclude her appeal is abandoned and will dismiss.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions

Code. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In N.D.’s first appeal in this matter she challenged an order terminating visitation based upon a finding visitation with S.D. was detrimental to S.D. We affirmed the order. (In re S.D. (Mar. 16, 2026, B345209) [nonpub. opn.].) While that appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated N.D.’s family reunification services (§ 366.21, subd. (f)) and set a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26). We denied N.D.’s petition for extraordinary writ challenging those orders. (N.D. v. Superior Court (Sept. 15, 2025, B346614) [nonpub. opn.].) At the selection and implementation hearing, the juvenile court found S.D. adoptable, that no exception applied, terminated parental rights, and ordered adoption as the permanent plan. DISCUSSION N.D. appeals the termination order but concedes she has “no specific claim of error.” Citing In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, she explains this appeal is to preclude a finding that her first appeal is moot. Because we have since resolved N.D.’s first appeal against her and because she does not assert any error, her appeal is abandoned and “dismissal is the appropriate disposition.” (In re Sara H. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 198, 202.) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J. We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J. BALTODANO, J.

2 Matthew G. Guerrero, Judge Linda D. Hurst, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo ______________________________

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Jon Ansolabehere, County Counsel and Vincent M. Uberti, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.