In re Faith L. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from orders
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SJ12568A/B
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed as moot.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court summarily denied Andrea S.'s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for unsupervised visitation, finding insufficient evidence that it was in the children's best interests. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because a subsequent trial court order granted Andrea an evidentiary hearing and modified her visitation rights, rendering the original appeal incapable of providing effective relief.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of section 388 petition for modification of visitation order“On May 30, 2013, the juvenile court denied a hearing on Andrea's section 388 petition, finding there was insufficient evidence to show unsupervised visitation was in the children's best interests.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's summary denial because it dismissed the appeal as moot. The court determined that the subsequent September 2013 order, which granted an evidentiary hearing and modified visitation, rendered the original appeal incapable of providing effective relief, making any review of the May 2013 order an idle act. |
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 Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489 — When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.
- relied: Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536 — When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the mootness doctrine, citing established California authority to support the conclusion that the subsequent trial court order granting the requested relief (an evidentiary hearing and modified visitation) rendered the appeal incapable of providing effective relief. The reasoning directly addresses the appellant's argument that the new order was not identical to the requested relief by focusing on the core relief sought (the hearing itself) which was subsequently granted.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court summarily denied Andrea S.'s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking unsupervised visitation, finding insufficient evidence that unsupervised visits were in the children's best interests. While her appeal was pending, the juvenile court granted an evidentiary hearing on a second section 388 petition, reinstated reunification services, and authorized lifting supervision, so the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot without reaching the merits.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial (without evidentiary hearing) of mother's section 388 petition to modify visitation from supervised to unsupervised“On May 30, 2013, the juvenile court denied a hearing on Andrea's section 388 petition, finding there was insufficient evidence to show unsupervised visitation was in the children's best interests.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court never evaluated whether the summary denial was an abuse of discretion; it held the appeal moot because a later section 388 petition produced the very relief sought on appeal, an evidentiary hearing resulting in a new visitation order authorizing lifted supervision, overnight visits and a trial visit. Under Esperanza C. and Anna S., an appeal is moot when no effective relief can be granted, and reversal here would only order a hearing that has already occurred on a superseded visitation order. Mother's argument that 'authorizing' lifted supervision differs from 'ordering' unsupervised visits does not change the analysis, because the relief she requested on appeal was a hearing, which she received, and any dispute over implementation of the September order belongs in the juvenile court or a new appeal from that order. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 — An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant effective relief.
- relied: In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489 — A dependency appeal is moot where subsequent juvenile court proceedings leave the appellate court unable to grant effective relief.
- relied: Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536 — When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the settled mootness rule from Esperanza C., Anna S., and Eye Dog Foundation: the only relief sought was an evidentiary hearing on visitation, and mother obtained that hearing and a superseding visitation order on her second section 388 petition. The court directly answered mother's contention that the September order was not equivalent to a grant of unsupervised visitation, and the record quoted supports the conclusion that reversal would be an idle act.
Opinion
Filed 2/13/14 In re Faith L. 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 FAITH L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D064339 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. SJ12568A/B) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREA S., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G.
Haehnle, Judge. Dismissed as moot.
Patti L. Dikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Andrea S. appeals orders summarily denying her petition for modification of a visitation order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388.1 We dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2011, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) initiated dependency proceedings on behalf of Faith L. and D.R. (together the children) when their parents, Andrea S. and David R., Sr., were arrested for child cruelty and being under the influence of narcotics. The juvenile court ordered a plan of family reunification services for Andrea but denied them to David, who was serving a lengthy prison sentence.
Andrea started using drugs in 1994 when she was 12 years old. During the reunification period, Andrea participated in inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment programs but found it difficult to control her addiction to methamphetamine.
She relapsed three times, testing positive for methamphetamine, and refused to test on other occasions. Each time she relapsed, her visitation with the children was changed from unsupervised to supervised.
In January 2013, the juvenile court terminated reunification services at the 18- month review hearing and set a hearing under section 366.26. The section 366.26 hearing was continued at the Agency's request to allow them to locate a permanent placement for the children.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 In May 2013, Andrea filed a section 388 petition seeking unsupervised visitation with her children. She stated she successfully graduated from Dependency Drug Court, completed a substance abuse treatment program, and was working with a sponsor through NA/AA to maintain her sobriety. Andrea visited the children regularly and was currently visiting them twice a week for up to eight hours.
On May 30, 2013, the juvenile court denied a hearing on Andrea's section 388 petition, finding there was insufficient evidence to show unsupervised visitation was in the children's best interests.
Andrea appealed the juvenile court's order summarily denying her section 388 petition, seeking reversal and remand with directions to the juvenile court to conduct a full and fair evidentiary hearing to determine whether unsupervised visitation is in the children's best interests.
During the pendency of this appeal, Andrea filed another section 388 petition in juvenile court. On September 4, 2013, following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile continued the section 366.26 hearing, reinstated family reunification services and authorized the Agency to lift supervision of Andrea's visitation with the children, implement overnight and weekend visitation with notice to minors' counsel, and start a 60-day trial visit with concurrence of minors' counsel.
On this court's own motion, we took judicial notice of the September 4 minute order and directed counsel to file letter briefs discussing whether this appeal has been rendered moot by the subsequent modification hearing and visitation order.
3 DISCUSSION
Andrea contends this appeal has not been rendered moot by the subsequent order because an order authorizing the Agency to lift supervision requirements is not the same as an order granting unsupervised visitation. She asserts the Agency will not interpret the subsequent order as a directive to permit unsupervised visitation.
"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. [Citation.]" (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054;
In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.)
After the juvenile court denied Andrea's request for an evidentiary hearing, she filed another section 388 petition. The juvenile court granted an evidentiary hearing on the second petition and resolved the matter in her favor. Andrea received all the relief she now seeks on appeal―an evidentiary hearing on the extent of her visitation rights with her children. A reversal of the May 2013 order denying an evidentiary hearing on Andrea's earlier petition would be an idle act. In September, the juvenile court fashioned a new visitation order based on the evidence it had before it at the hearing. Our decision would not affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding; therefore, we cannot grant effective relief. (In re Esperanza C., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1054; In re Anna S., supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1498.)
4 DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Anna S. D055036 · 2010-01-13
- In Re Esperanza C. D051521 · 2008-08-22
- Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind L.A. 28495 · 1967-10-27