A juvenile court reviewing a petition under the same case number as two earlier petitions cannot ignoring an existing order from another judge terminating the jurisdiction. The minor here was ordered into a camp placement upon two aggregated petitions. Following her release, she refused to comply with an order placing her at her mother’s home, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. In the meantime, a third petition had been filed, and another warrant issued upon that petition. Several years passed without an arrest under either warrant. Eventually the probation officer noted that the minor had been living in the community unsupervised without an arrest for two years, and that she was now 19 years old and outside the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, an order terminating jurisdiction and ordering recall of the warrant on the first two petitions was ordered in Department 261 of the Los Angeles County juvenile court. Shortly thereafter, in Department 264 of the same court, a different judge ordered the other warrant to remain in full force and effect, and amended the Department 261 order nunc pro tunc to delete the reference to terminating jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the order in Department 261 terminating jurisdiction on all three petitions precluded any further action by the judge in Department 264. The People’s remedy for altering the Department 261 order was appropriate appellate review of that order; the second juvenile court judge lacked jurisdiction to ignore or alter the order.