In re P.B.
Filed 9/10/12 In re P.B. CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 P.B., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
___________________________________
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent;
TERRI B. et al.,
Real Parties in
Interest.
No. B241135
(L.A.
Super. Ct. No. CK03561)
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary
writ. Amy Pellman, Judge. Writ is dismissed as moot.
John F.
Krattli, Acting County Counsel, James
M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, David Michael Miller, Associate County
Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner.
Law Office
of Timothy Martella and Rebecca Harkness, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Real Party in Interest Terri B.
Law Office
of Marlene Furth and Danielle Butler Vappie, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Real Party in Interest Clifton G.
Children’s
Law Center of Los Angeles, Ronnie Cheung and Rebecca Canales for Minor.
No
appearance for Respondent.
_________________________________
In this petition for extraordinary
writ,
title="">[1] the Department
of Children and Family Services (Department) requests issuance of a
peremptory writ of mandate directing the dependency court to vacate its May 10,
2012 order releasing P.B. to Terri B. (mother) pending adjudication and
disposition of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300
writ of mandate ordering the dependency court to vacate its May 10, 2012 release order and issue an order to detain the child
under section 319, subdivision (d), or show cause why a peremptory writ
ordering the dependency court to do
so should not issue.
On August
2, 2012, after sustaining an allegation that P. is a child described by section
300, subdivision (b), the dependency court declared P. a dependent of the
court. The court found by
at substantial risk of harm in mother’s custody and reasonable efforts were
made to eliminate the need for P.’ removal from mother’s custody. The court removed P. from mother’s custody
and ordered the Department to provide mother with reunification services.
The Department’s request to vacate
the dependency court’s May 10, 2012 order releasing the child
to mother pending adjudication and disposition of the section 300 petition
is moot. As the dependency court
subsequently issued a dispositional order removing the child from mother’s
custody, any ruling by this court concerning the May 10,
2012
order will have no practical impact.
(See Carson Citizens for Reform v. Kawagoe (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th
357, 364 [“‘A case is moot when any ruling by this court can have no practical
impact or provide the parties effectual relief.
[Citation.]’ [Citation.]”]; In
re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489-1490; In re Jessica K.
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.)
The petition for extraordinary
relief is dismissed as moot.
KRIEGLER,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P. J. MOSK,
J
minute orders of the proceedings on May 9, 10, June 14, and August 2,
2012, and of the
reporter’s transcript of the proceedings on May 16, 2012.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Hereinafter, all statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
