In re J.G. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

In addition to its arguments on the merits of the appeal, the Department raised the issue of mootness due to the return of Child to the custody of Mother. Having received the relief in juvenile court that she sought here, Mother in essence agrees that the appeal is moot. We likewise

3 agree that the June 17 Order renders this appeal moot, and we decline to exercise discretionary authority to consider it. An appeal in a dependency case is moot if subsequent events prevent a court from granting the appellant “ ‘ “any effect[ive] relief” ’ ” even if she prevails. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) Effective relief requires: (1) “an ongoing harm” that is (2) “redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the plaintiff seeks.” (Ibid.) We review mootness “ ‘ “on a case-by- case basis,” ’ ” including to determine “ ‘ “whether [our] decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding.” ’ ” (Ibid.) We conclude Mother’s appeal from the dispositional order removing Child from her custody is moot because the subsequent June 17 Order returned him to her custody. (See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404, 406 [mother’s argument that “the juvenile…