In re K.C.
Filed 5/9/13 In re K.C. CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re K.C. et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
H038794
(Santa Cruz
County
Super. Ct.
Nos. DP002363 &
DP002364)
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
T.C.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
T.C. is the mother of K.C., a
dependent child of the
County Juvenile Court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, sections
300, et seq. T.C. appeals a court order
authorizing out-of-state travel with K.C.’s paternal grandmother.
A memorandum opinion is appropriate
in this case because no novel issues are presented. According to the California
Supreme Court, “an opinion sufficiently states ‘reasons’ if it sets forth the
‘grounds’ or ‘principles’ upon which the justices concur in the judgment.†(Lewis
v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1262.)
The order at issue in this appeal
was made after a hearing on July 17,
2012, authorizing travel to Reno, Nevada
on July 26, 2012 to July 29, 2012. T.C. admits “it is reasonable to assume the
travel has already occurred,†but insists this court should consider the merits
of her challenge to the order. The
Attorney General asserts the action is moot, and should be dismissed.
An action that originally was based
on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if the question has
become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be
without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed. (In re
Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.)
Here, because the travel was authorized for July 26, 2012 to July 29, 2012, it has likely already occurred. A reversal of the travel authorization order
would have no practical effect.
Courts do have inherent discretion
to decide moot cases that pose “ ‘an issue of broad public interest that is
likely to recur.’ †(
1153, 1158.) Although T.C. claims that
this is such a case, there is no information in the record to that effect. It seems, in fact, that the travel
authorization in this case was a one-time request, and not a recurring
issue. If K.C.’s grandmother wishes to
travel out of state in the future, and is granted authorization to do so, there
is no reason T.C. cannot dispute the issue at that time.
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
______________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
PREMO, J.
____________________________________
ELIA
J.
