Opinion
F072544
06-21-2016
In re S.O., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.O., Defendant and Appellant.
Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Sarah Carrillo, County Counsel, and Cody M. Nesper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. JV7385, JV7387, JV7388)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald Segerstrom, Judge. Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Sarah Carrillo, County Counsel, and Cody M. Nesper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Hill, P.J., Levy, J. and Peña, J. --------
-ooOoo-
In a juvenile dependency proceeding, S.O. (mother) appeals from orders, entered on September 29, 2015, that terminated the dependencies of three of her children, S.L.O., D.H., and S.H., awarded physical custody to their father, T.H., and ordered once-a-month supervised visitation with mother. Mother's only contention is that the juvenile court erred, at the time of the 12-month review hearing, by failing to proceed as if the children were Indian children pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 5.482(c).
By a separate opinion filed on June 13, 2016, which addressed mother's appeal from the orders entered at the 12-month review hearing, we rejected the same contention she now raises, concluding that she forfeited the issue by failing to raise it below. (In re S.O. et al. (Jun. 13, 2016, F071404) [nonpub. opn.].) Consequently, her current challenge is now moot. (In re Audrey D. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 34, 39.) Accordingly, the appeal from the court's September 29, 2015, orders is dismissed as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.