In re Kaitlyn E. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J518651
- Trial judge
- Jean P. Leonard
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court denied the minor's request to suspend visits with her parents and continued reunification services to the 18-month date. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the 18-month date had passed and the subsequent 18-month hearing was imminent, rendering any remedy ineffective.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Continuation of reunification services to the 18-month date“The Agency and the parents assert the issue concerning the extension of services to the 18-month date is moot. We agree. The 18-month date has passed.” | mixed | correct | agree with court The court correctly identified that the passage of the statutory 18-month deadline rendered the challenge to the continuation of services moot, as the services had already been provided and could not be rescinded. |
Denial of request to suspend visits with parents“Because the December 1, 2014, hearing is days away, this court is "unable to fashion an effective remedy . . . ."” | mixed | correct | agree with court The court determined that because the next scheduled hearing was imminent, it could not provide an effective remedy for the visitation issue, making the appeal moot. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Pablo D. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 759 — An appeal is moot if the court cannot fashion an effective remedy, such as rescinding services that have already been received.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the mootness doctrine to dismiss the appeal due to the passage of the 18-month deadline and the imminence of the next hearing. However, it is a brief procedural dismissal that does not address the underlying merits of the trial court's rulings.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAt the 12-month review hearing the juvenile court denied the minor Kaitlyn E.'s request to suspend visits with her parents, continued reunification services to the 18-month date, and set an 18-month hearing for October 14, 2014. On the minor's appeal, the Court of Appeal took judicial notice that the 18-month date had passed and the hearing was continued to December 1, found the services issue moot and the visitation issue effectively unremediable, and dismissed the appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Continuation of the parents' reunification services from the 12-month review to the 18-month date“The Agency and the parents assert the issue concerning the extension of services to the 18-month date is moot. We agree. The 18-month date has passed.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court did not reach the merits; it held the challenge moot because the 18-month period had run and the services had already been received, relying on In re Pablo D. That reasoning is consistent with the rule that an appellate court cannot rescind services already provided, so dismissal of this issue is supported. |
Denial of the minor's request to suspend visitation with her parents“Because the December 1, 2014, hearing is days away, this court is "unable to fashion an effective remedy . . . ."” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court acknowledged this issue only 'may become moot' yet dismissed it without analysis, reasoning that the imminent December 1 hearing made effective relief impossible. The visitation order remained in effect and the judicially noticed minute order shows visits were being expanded, so the controversy was arguably live; the opinion does not explain why it declined to decide the issue or exercise discretion to reach it. The result is defensible given the timing but the reasoning is thin. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Pablo D. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 759 — An appeal challenging an order extending reunification services is moot once the services have been received because the appellate court cannot rescind services already provided and cannot fashion an effective remedy; writ review is the appropriate vehicle for timely relief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The mootness holding on the extension of services is squarely supported by In re Pablo D. and the undisputed passage of the 18-month date. The court's treatment of the visitation issue is less complete: it conceded the issue only 'may become moot' but dismissed without explaining why a still-operative visitation order could not be reviewed or why discretionary review should not be exercised.
Opinion
Filed 11/26/14 In re Kaitlyn E. 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 KAITLYN E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D066294 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J518651) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAITLYN E., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jean P.
Leonard, Judge. Dismissed.
Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant/Minor.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent, San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency. Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Plaintiff and Respondent, Angelica E.
Lelah Fisher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Plaintiff and Respondent, Matthew E.
At the June 27, 2014, 12-month review hearing in Kaitlyn E.'s juvenile dependency case, the court denied her request to suspend visits with her parents, Angelica E. and Matthew E. (the parents), continued the parents' reunification services to the 18-month date and set an 18-month hearing for October 14. On July 10, Kaitlyn's trial counsel filed a notice of appeal. In the opening brief, Kaitlyn's appellate counsel contended the court lacked authority to continue services to the 18-month date and erred in denying Kaitlyn's request to suspend visits. By the time the appeal was fully briefed, October 14 had passed. We asked the parties to file letter briefs discussing whether the appeal is moot. We received responses from the parents and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency).
The Agency, joined by Matthew, requests judicial notice of the October 14, 2014, minute order. The minute order shows the Agency requested a six-week continuance to assess the appropriateness of returning Kaitlyn to the parents' care. The court continued the 18-month hearing to December 1 and gave the Agency discretion to expand visits and allow unsupervised visits, with notice to Kaitlyn's counsel, and to allow overnight visits and a 60-day trial visit, with the concurrence of Kaitlyn's counsel.
2 The Agency and the parents assert the issue concerning the extension of services to the 18-month date is moot. We agree. The 18-month date has passed. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, §§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A), 361.49.) "Obviously, we cannot rescind services that have already been received by the parents." (In re Pablo D. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 759, 761.) The Agency and the parents also assert the issue concerning suspension of visits may become moot. Again, we agree. Because the December 1, 2014, hearing is days away, this court is "unable to fashion an effective remedy . . . ." (Ibid.) We note that if Kaitlyn's trial counsel had sought traditional writ relief immediately after the 12-month hearing, this court could have addressed the contentions in a timely and effective manner.
(Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Orange County Social Services Agency v. Gloria D. G022762 · 1998-10-30