California Courts of Appeal, 2024

In re N.L. CA2/8

In re N.L. CA2/8
California Courts of Appeal · Decided March 28, 2024

In re N.L. CA2/8

Opinion

Filed 3/28/24 In re N.L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT In re N.L., a Person Coming Under B329975 the Juvenile Court Law.

Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP00940B AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. R.L. et al., Defendants and Respondents; N.L., a Minor, etc., Appellant.

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Appeals dismissed.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant N.L.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent R.L.

Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent K.F. _______________________ The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and the child N.L., who is the subject of this dependency case, appealed the juvenile court’s May 18, 2023 order finding that father R.L. had established the parental bond exception to termination of parental rights.

This court took judicial notice on its own motion that on March 5, 2024, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents and ordered adoption as the permanent plan for the child.

On March 14, 2024, we sent a Government Code letter advising the parties we intended to dismiss the appeal as moot unless they establish dismissal is not proper. The deadline for responses has passed. None of the parties has responded to our letter.

Accordingly, we conclude the appeals are moot.

DISPOSITION The appeals are dismissed.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR: WILEY, J. VIRAMONTES, J.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.