Opinion
D073291
06-11-2018
In re C.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N.T., Defendant and Appellant; C.B., Appellant.
Donna Balderston Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant C.B., a minor. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. NJ13700B) APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael Imhoff, Commissioner. Dismissed as moot. Donna Balderston Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant C.B., a minor. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
C.B., a minor child, and N.T., minor's mother (Mother), appeal from orders denying Mother's request for reunification services. While the appeal was pending, respondent San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) asked this court to take judicial notice of recent orders issued by the juvenile court granting Mother's subsequent request for reunification services. We grant the Agency's request, take judicial notice of the recent orders, and dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
C.B.'s father (Father) was arrested for possession of methamphetamine and marijuana in September 2015 when C.B. was less than one year old. After the arrest, the police searched the family home and found marijuana on a low shelf easily accessible to a child, as well as a firearm between the bed and the wall. A few days later, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. As a result, the Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of C.B. and requested a protective custody warrant. In the petition, the Agency noted that Mother had a history of substance abuse and had previously had her parental rights terminated as to another child, a half sibling of C.B. The court issued the protective custody warrant and ordered C.B. detained, but Mother refused to cooperate and fled the state with C.B.
In February 2017, the police located Mother and C.B. in Nevada. Mother was arrested on outstanding warrants, and the Agency arranged for C.B. to be returned to San Diego and placed in protective custody. The juvenile court held a contested disposition hearing in May; the court found jurisdiction over C.B., removed him from Mother and Father's care, and placed him in a licensed foster home. In addition, because Mother had previously failed to reunify with C.B.'s half sibling, the court ordered that the Agency was not to provide reunification services to Mother in the present case.
This time, however, Mother sought treatment for her substance abuse and was able to maintain sobriety. In July 2017, Mother filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 requesting the court order reunification services for her. The court held a contested hearing but ultimately denied the petition. After further treatment, Mother filed another section 388 petition requesting reunification services in November 2017. The juvenile court held a hearing on the second petition in December. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court noted Mother had made substantial progress but that she had not yet established her recovery outside of residential treatment, and that C.B. had special needs but was making consistent progress in his current placement. Therefore, the court once again denied the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother and C.B. appeal from the juvenile court's denial of Mother's section 388 petition and assert the court erred by refusing to order reunification services for her. While the present appeal was pending, Mother filed another section 388 petition seeking reunification services and, in April, the juvenile court granted the petition and ordered the Agency to provide her services. Thereafter, the Agency filed a motion requesting this court take judicial notice of the juvenile court's most recent orders and asserting the present appeal is moot in light of the orders and should be dismissed.
Mother previously appealed the juvenile court's denial of her first section 388 petition, and the appellate court confirmed the order in an unpublished opinion. (In re C.B. (Feb. 21, 2018, D072719).)
DISCUSSION
An appellate court has inherent power to dismiss an appeal which it should not hear, on its own motion or on the motion of a party. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) When the questions raised on appeal become moot, such that a reversal from the appellate court would have no practical effect, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal unless it involves a question of continuing public importance that is capable of repetition yet evading review. (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404; In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.) Whether an appeal has been rendered moot by a subsequent action of the juvenile court and should therefore be dismissed is decided on a case-by-case basis. (In re Dani R., at pp. 404-405.)
Here, the Agency asks this court to take judicial notice of two recent juvenile court orders in which the court granted Mother's most recent section 388 petition and ordered reunification services for her. It is appropriate for an appellate court to take judicial notice of such records to show events occurring during the pendency of the appeal have rendered the appeal moot. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459; In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1417.) We therefore grant the Agency's request and take judicial notice of the minute orders issued by the juvenile court on April 17 and 26, 2018. Because the orders grant Mother and C.B. the only relief they seek on appeal—reunification services for Mother—and the appeal does not raise a question of continuing public importance capable of repetition but evading review, we further conclude the orders render the present appeal moot.
Appellants assert this court can still provide them relief in the form of additional months of reunification services and, therefore, argue the appeal is not moot. They contend Mother would have received an additional four months of services had the juvenile court granted her section 388 petition in December instead of the following April and, while they acknowledge the juvenile court may extend the period of services provided to Mother at a future hearing pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (g), they argue the court may not find the necessary statutory conditions apply to do so. (See §§ 366.21, subds. (f), (g), 356, 361.49.) Mother therefore asserts that this court should order the juvenile court to extend her reunification services for an additional four months.
However, any argument as to what the juvenile court may or may not do going forward is speculative and appellants' request that this court order the juvenile court to extend Mother's reunification services is premature. The record on appeal does not contain any information about the progress of Mother or C.B. beyond the judicially noticed orders, and it would be improper for this court to order the juvenile court to extend the reunification period regardless of any relevant intervening events. Moreover, even if the juvenile court had provided reunification services to Mother back in December, there is no guarantee she would have continued to receive services through the end of the presently applicable period. (See § 388; Sheila S. v. Superior Court. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872 [concluding a juvenile court may modify a dispositional order to terminate previously ordered reunification services pursuant to a section 388 petition].) Should the juvenile court refuse to order additional services to Mother in the future, Mother or C.B. may be able to seek appellate review of that decision but, at this juncture, there is no further effective relief this court can provide.
C.B. suggests in his reply brief that there was a discussion about a further extension of reunification services at the April 26, 2018 hearing, but offers little detail as to what was said and the transcript is not part of the record on appeal. --------
We therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. AARON, J.