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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.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.
3