DISCUSSION

Victoria contends her appeal is not moot because the juvenile court continues to have

the authority to provide reunification services to her. She points out that she may file a section

388 petition requesting additional reunification services. In addition, if Adrian's placement

with his father is not successful, the court may consider placing Adrian with her with

additional services.

The Agency, joined by minor's counsel, argue that the child's placement with his father

converted the proceedings from a family reunification case to a family maintenance case, and

the issue of whether the juvenile court erred when it denied additional reunification services to

Victoria is now moot.

An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an

event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief. (In re

2 We grant the Agency's request for judicial notice of the minute order dated July 29, 2013, at which the juvenile court continued Adrian's placement with his father, terminated its jurisdiction and issued family court custody and visitation orders. That order will be final on September 29, 2013. 3 Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054.) The reviewing court determines on a case-

by-case basis whether subsequent events in a dependency case have rendered the appeal moot

and whether its decision would affect the outcome of the case in a subsequent proceeding. (Id.

at p. 1055.)

Adrian has successfully reunified with his father. Unlike a temporary placement made

at a dispositional hearing with a noncustodial parent under section 361.2 (at which the court

may order the Agency to provide reunification services to the other parent), Adrian's placement

with his father is intended to be permanent. Absent a showing in juvenile court of changed

circumstances and the child's best interests, the reunification period is over. (See In re Marilyn

H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 [a child is entitled to a prompt resolution of his or her custody

status].) Even if the record supported Victoria's case on its merits, which it does not, reversal

by this court would not restore the reunification period. Thus, the issue on appeal has been

rendered moot by subsequent events.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

4