In re Jordan G.
Filed 7/5/12 In
re Jordan G. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 JORDAN
G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JASON G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D060864
(Super. Ct. No.
J518-064)
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of
County, Carol Isackson, Judge.
Dismissed.
Jason
G., the father of Jordan G., appeals an order granting
paternal grandparents. Jason contends
the juvenile court used an incorrect legal standard in finding the grandparents
qualified as de facto parents.
Jason also contends the court erred because Jordan
had been removed from the grandparents' care.
FACTS
In
March 2011, agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency and the San Diego
County Sheriff's Department executed a search warrant at Jason's residence and
found 217 marijuana plants on the premises.
mother, S.G., were present at the time.
Jason and S.G. were arrested, and Jordan
was taken into protective custody. After
spending one day at Polinsky Children's Center, Jordan
was released to the paternal grandparents.
On
March 11, the San Diego County Health and
Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a dependency petition on behalf of Jordan
alleging she was at substantial risk of harm because her parents had failed to
provide her a safe home and the marijuana was easily accessible to the
child. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 300, subd. (b).)
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
Jason
did not get along with the paternal grandparents. Their relationship declined after Jason
started smoking marijuana for medical purposes.
While Jason was in jail, he believed the paternal grandparents broke
into his home. Jordan
said she wanted to stay with the paternal grandparents, noting she was
comfortable in their home. In early
April, Jordan asked her attorney to tell the court that she likes living with her
grandparents and "things are going well.
In
late April, Jordan told the social worker the paternal grandparents bickered at each
other and raised their voices. Once, Jordan
overheard the grandmother complain to the grandfather about taking care of
her. Jordan
also did not like her grandfather asking her what was wrong and if she was all
right. The social worker relayed Jordan's
concerns to the grandparents, and they agreed to be more careful and to avoid
upsetting her.
On
May 5, the juvenile court sustained the petition, declared Jordan a
dependent, removed custody of her from the parents, placed Jordan
with the paternal grandparents and ordered reunification services for Jason and
S.G. The court authorized unsupervised
visits for S.G. The court ruled Jason
could have unsupervised visits at an Agency office upon positive feedback from
his therapist.
By
late summer, Jason's visits with Jordan
had become problematic.
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3] Jason was not following visitation guidelines
and often discussed anxiety-producing topics.
During one visit, security escorted Jason off the premises. During another visit, Jason said
"Hi" to Jordan and canceled the rest of the visit.
The
grandfather, who drove Jordan to all visits, became upset after two visits ran overtime and was
rude to Jordan on one of those occasions. Jordan
said she did not want to go home to the grandparents' residence after a visit
with Jason because the grandfather would ask her about the visit. After another visit with Jason, Jordan
said she wanted to live with S.G.
In
October, the paternal grandparents applied for de facto parent
status. In their application, the
grandparents said they had responsibility for Jordan's
day-to-day care during the more than seven months she lived with them and they
had attended court hearings.
At
a pretrial status conference on October 11, the court heard the grandparents'
application. Jason and S.G. opposed the
application. Jason's counsel informed
the court that Agency had removed Jordan
from the grandparent's care a day earlier.
In granting the application, the court noted grandparents had cared for Jordan
for seven months and otherwise met the requirements for de facto parent
status. The court said it was important
to allow the paternal grandparents' voice to "be heard as to their own
self-interest." The court also said
the relationship required for de facto parent status should be
"assessed in terms of the requesting party's right to continue to further
their own interest in the relationship with the child"; not necessarily
"in terms of [the] best interest of the child."
On
our own motion, we take judicial notice
of the minute order for the February 7, 2012 pretrial status
conference. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd.
(d)(1), 459.)
title="">[4] At that status conference, the court vacated
the de facto parent status of the paternal grandparents.
DISCUSSION
Jason
contends the juvenile court erred by granting de facto parent status to
the paternal grandparents. However,
because this issue is now moot, we need not address it.
"An
appellate court will not review questions which are moot and which are only of
academic importance. It will not
undertake to determine abstract questions of law at the request of a party who
shows no substantial rights can be affected by the decision either
way." (Keefer v. Keefer (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 335, 337.) Our duty is to decide actual controversies
and not to give opinions upon moot questions.
(In re Jessica K. (2000) 79
Cal.App.4th 1313, 1316.)
An
appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the parties, the occurrence of an
event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant
effective relief. (In re Jessica K., supra,
79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1316.)
Generally, a reviewing court will dismiss a case in which the issues are
moot. (Id. at p. 1315.)
A
reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue
rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of
continuing public importance and is one capable of repetition, yet evading
review. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.) We decide on a case-by-case basis whether
subsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether
our decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding. (In re
Dylan T. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 769.)
Here,
whether the juvenile court erroneously granted de facto parent status to
the paternal grandparents is no longer a " 'live' "
controversy because the juvenile court later rescinded the grant of de facto
parent status. (See In re Hirenia C. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 504, 518.) Thus, no effective relief regarding this
issue can be afforded Jason. Moreover,
the legal issues raised by Jason do not involve legal questions that are of
continuing public importance.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
AARON, J.
marijuana card and operated a medical marijuana collective. (See generally, Health & Saf. Code, §§
11362.5, 11362.765.)
are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
