In re Adrian W.
Filed 9/16/13 In re Adrian W. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
VICTORIA W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D063431
(Super. Ct.
No. J507635D)
Appeal from an order of the
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).
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
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
Agency (Agency) added in-home services to A.C.'s case plan.
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,
name="_ftnref2" title="">[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 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. (
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.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Further statutory references are
to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[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.
