In re Fabian Z.
Filed 9/5/08 In re Fabian Z. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FABIAN Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN Z., Defendant and Appellant. | D052837 (Super. Ct. No. J509547B) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, George W. Clarke, Judge. Dismissed.
Juan Z. appeals following an April 4, 2008 post permanency planning review hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 petition. At the hearing, the juvenile dependency court placed Juan's son, Fabian Z., with Fabian's mother, Christina M.; issued a temporary restraining order protecting Fabian and Christina from Juan; ordered Juan to comply with an order for supervised visitation; and continued Fabian's dependency. Juan, who was acting in propria persona in the juvenile court, contends the court violated his constitutional right to examine Fabian on the issues of visitation and continuing the dependency.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) asks that the appeal be dismissed as moot. The basis for the request is a July 15, 2008 minute order of which the Agency seeks judicial notice. The minute order shows Juan examined Fabian on direct, after which the court found Juan had violated the restraining order, stayed five days in custody for the violation, ordered Fabian placed with Christina with visitation for Juan,[1]and dismissed the section 387 petition. In opposition to the Agency's request for dismissal, Juan argues because the judge presiding on April 4 did not allow him to examine Fabian but the judge presiding on July 15 did, this court should set forth the proper procedure for the juvenile court to follow when a parent, acting in propria persona, wishes to examine a child. Juan contends this is necessary in order to protect the due process rights of both parent and child.
The July 15, 2008 proceedings render moot Juan's contentions regarding the April 4 proceedings. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315.) We decline to exercise our discretion to decide this case in spite of its mootness, as it does not involve an issue likely to evade review. (Cf. In re Miguel A. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 389, 392.)
We grant the request for judicial notice and dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
BENKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The first four visits were to be supervised, with the subsequent visits unsupervised.
