In re Jocelyn G. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. NJ14619B
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Imhoff (commissioner)
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The juvenile court denied a section 388 petition filed by a de facto parent to return the child to her care, finding it was not in the child's best interests. The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal as moot because her parental rights had been terminated in a separate, final order that she did not appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of the section 388 petition filed by the de facto parent (Heather C.)“The court denied the petition, finding Heather had established changed circumstances in that the charges against her had been dropped. The court praised Heather's care of Joselyn, but determined granting the petition would not be in Heather's best interests because it would not benefit her to move her from the prospective adoptive home.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's denial of the section 388 petition. Instead, the court dismissed the appeal as moot because the termination of the appellant's parental rights rendered any potential relief ineffective. The opinion does not evaluate whether the trial court correctly applied the best interests standard or the changed circumstances requirement. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Ruby T. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1201 — When an appeal has become moot, the reviewing court must dismiss the appeal.
- relied: In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313 — 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 Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132 — Because the order terminating parental rights is final, the court cannot grant the appellant any effective relief.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the mootness doctrine to dismiss the appeal. The court relied on established California authority to determine that the final termination of parental rights precluded any effective relief on the underlying section 388 petition.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court denied a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition by Joselyn's former de facto parent seeking the child's return to her home, finding changed circumstances but that the move would not be in the child's best interests; the mother, Gloria G., appealed. The Court of Appeal took judicial notice of the subsequent, unappealed order terminating Gloria's parental rights and dismissed the appeal as moot because no effective relief could be granted.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of de facto parent Heather C.'s section 388 petition seeking Joselyn's return to Heather's home (appealed by the mother)“Because the order terminating Gloria's parental rights is final, this court cannot grant her any effective relief.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not reach the merits of the section 388 ruling. It instead dismissed on mootness grounds because the mother's parental rights were terminated by a final, unappealed order, so she could obtain no effective relief from reversal of the section 388 denial. The mootness analysis is consistent with the cited authorities (Ruby T., Jessica K., Albert G.), and a parent whose rights are finally terminated generally has no remaining interest in placement decisions. The court did not separately discuss the mother's standing to appeal the denial of another party's petition, but that question was unnecessary given the mootness holding. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Ruby T. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1201 — When an appeal has become moot, the reviewing court must dismiss it.
- relied: In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313 — An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, an event occurs that makes it impossible for the appellate court to grant effective relief.
- relied: In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132 — Where a subsequent order terminating parental rights has become final, an appeal from an earlier order is moot because no effective relief can be granted to the parent.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies settled mootness doctrine: once the order terminating the mother's parental rights became final without appeal, reversal of the section 388 denial could not restore any interest she retained in the child's placement. The court did not address whether the mother ever had standing to appeal the denial of the de facto parent's petition or whether any discretionary exception to mootness applied, but neither omission affects the result.
Opinion
Filed 12/24/14 In re Jocelyn G. 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 JOSELYN G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D066027 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ14619B) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLORIA G., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J.
Imhoff, Commissioner. Dismissed.
Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Gloria G. appeals a juvenile court order denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 petition by her daughter's de facto parent, which sought the child's return to the de facto parent's home. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2012, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300 on behalf of Gloria's four children, alleging they had been exposed to violent confrontations in the family home between Gloria and the maternal grandmother, and Gloria had an extensive history of referrals to child protective services for child abuse and neglect. This appeal concerns only one of the children, Joselyn G., who is now five years old.
The Agency subsequently filed amended petitions, adding that Gloria could not provide regular care because of her substance abuse. The court found the allegations of the petitions to be true, declared the children dependents and ordered services.
Joselyn was placed in the foster home of Heather C. In May 2013, the court granted Heather's application to be named Joselyn's de facto parent. In October, it was learned that Heather's former employer had alleged Heather had embezzled funds, and an investigation was ongoing in Riverside County. Authorities reported Heather had been 1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 arrested and released on her own recognizance in January and, in February, a felony complaint advised her she was being charged with embezzlement. Heather had attended several hearings, and the deputy district attorney reported there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. The Agency removed Joselyn from Heather's care and placed her in a prospective adoptive home.
Meanwhile, Gloria received reunification services for 12 months, but made only minimal progress. In November 2013, the court terminated her services and set a hearing to determine a permanent plan.
In March 2014, Heather petitioned under section 388, seeking Joselyn's return and that she be designated a nonrelated extended family member. She argued she expected the charges to be dropped, and return to her care was in Joselyn's best interests. Gloria also filed a petition, requesting the same relief, but then withdrew her petition.
The social worker and Joselyn's attorney opposed the motion. The prospective adoptive parent said Joselyn reported Heather had hit her and locked her a dark room.
Joselyn told the social worker she did not want to return to Heather's home. A visit in January 2014 was terminated early because Gloria brought Heather to the visit and said Heather was a social worker. In April, Gloria filed a new section 388 petition, asking that Joselyn be returned to Heather. The court dismissed Gloria's petition without prejudice.
After an evidentiary hearing on Heather's petition, the court denied the petition, finding Heather had established changed circumstances in that the charges against her had been dropped. The court praised Heather's care of Joselyn, but determined granting 3 the petition would not be in Heather's best interests because it would not benefit her to move her from the prospective adoptive home.
DISCUSSION
We grant the Agency's unopposed motion for judicial notice of the court's order of July 8, 2014, terminating Gloria's parental rights. Gloria did not appeal this order. It is now final, and her appeal from the court's denial of Heather's section 388 petition is moot.
When an appeal has become moot the reviewing court must dismiss the appeal.
(In re Ruby T. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1204.) 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 Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.)
Because the order terminating Gloria's parental rights is final, this court cannot grant her any effective relief. (In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 134-135.)
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
4 O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Albert G. B162016 · 2003-11-07
- In Re Jessica K. B132583 · 2000-04-18
- In Re Ruby T. H000526 · 1986-05-06