In re Adrian W. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial judge
- Carol Isackson
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed as moot.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Judith L. Haller (author), Gilbert Nares, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court terminated the mother's reunification services at a six-month review hearing, finding she had made only some progress with her case plan. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the child had been permanently placed with his father, rendering it impossible for the appellate court to grant effective relief.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.21, subdivision (e)“The court found that Victoria had made only some progress with her case plan and terminated her reunification services.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's decision because it determined the appeal was moot. The court explicitly stated, '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.' Therefore, no standard of review was applied to the underlying ruling. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 — 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.
- relied: In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 — A child is entitled to a prompt resolution of his or her custody status.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the mootness doctrine to the specific facts of a permanent placement with the other parent. It distinguishes temporary placements under section 361.2 from permanent reunifications, correctly concluding that reversal would not restore the reunification period.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court, at the six-month review hearing, found that mother Victoria W. had made only some progress on her case plan and terminated her reunification services while continuing services to the father. On appeal, after taking judicial notice of later orders placing the child permanently with his father and terminating dependency jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal as moot because reversal could not restore the reunification period.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order terminating mother's reunification services at the six-month status review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e))“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.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the termination order; it dismissed because the child's subsequent permanent placement with the father ended the reunification period, so no effective relief was available. The mootness analysis follows In re Esperanza C.'s case-by-case test and reasonably answers the mother's section 388 argument by noting that any further services would require a changed-circumstances showing in the juvenile court regardless of the outcome on appeal. The parenthetical 'which it does not' is unexplained dicta, but it does not affect the disposition. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 — An appeal is moot when, through no fault of respondent, an event makes it impossible for the appellate court to grant effective relief; mootness in dependency cases is decided case by case, considering whether the decision would affect a subsequent proceeding.
- relied: In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 — A dependent child is entitled to prompt resolution of his or her custody status; after the reunification period ends, a parent seeking further services must show changed circumstances and the child's best interests (via section 388).
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the established mootness standard, distinguished a temporary section 361.2 placement from a permanent placement with the father, and answered the mother's section 388 argument by noting that avenue remains available only on a changed-circumstances showing regardless of the appeal's outcome. The opinion includes an unexplained aside that the record does not support the mother's merits claim, and it judicially noticed termination of jurisdiction without discussing its effect on the mootness analysis, leaving minor gaps in an otherwise defensible disposition.
Opinion
Filed 9/16/13 In re Adrian W. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re ADRIAN W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D063431 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J507635D) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTORIA W., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the San Diego Superior Court, Carol Isackson, Judge.
Dismissed as moot.
Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Erica R. Cortez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Victoria W. appeals an order terminating her reunification services at the six-month status review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.21, subdivision (e).1 We dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Victoria and A.C. are the parents of Adrian W., who was born in December 2009. The parents have significant substance abuse and criminal histories dating back to 1989 in Victoria's case and 1981 in A.C.'s case. Victoria lost custody of a son in 1992. Her parental rights to two other children were terminated in 1999.
Adrian was a juvenile court dependent from May 2010 to May 2011 due to domestic violence between his parents. Victoria completed her service plan and remained sober. In May 2011, the juvenile court granted joint legal custody to the parents and physical custody of Adrian to Victoria, and terminated dependency jurisdiction.
In March 2012, Victoria was arrested for public intoxication and child endangerment.
The court placed Adrian with relatives and ordered reunification services for each parent. In reports prepared for the six-month review hearing, the social worker reported that Victoria made some progress during the review period but was not actively engaged in substance abuse treatment, parenting education or therapy. A.C. completed individual therapy and submitted to on demand drug testing. On his own initiative, he attended an anger management course and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. To facilitate reunification with Adrian, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) added in-home services to A.C.'s case plan.
1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 At the December 2012 six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found that A.C. had made substantive progress with the provisions of his case plan and continued reunification services to him. The court found that Victoria had made only some progress with her case plan and terminated her reunification services.
On August 14, 2013, on its own motion, this court took judicial notice of the minute order dated April 29, 2013,2 ordering the child placed with his father. We asked the parties to respond to the question: "Has the issue raised on appeal . . . been rendered moot by the child's placement with his father?"
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.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Esperanza C. D051521 · 2008-08-22
- In Re Marilyn H S025592 · 1993-06-03