Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ernest Borunda, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.), Super. Ct. No. SJ11191
HUFFMAN, J.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) appeals an order granting Jose A. an additional six months of reunification services at the six-month review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e). The Agency contends Jose, despite receiving an initial six months of services, made no attempt at reunification and was extremely unlikely to do so in the near future. The court therefore, erred by continuing services for Jose. Based on this court's recent ruling in In re Jesse W. (Dec. 12, 2007, D051108) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2007 Cal.App. Lexis 2115], we dismiss the appeal as moot.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2006 three-year-old Jessie, two-year-old Y.O. and one-year-old Joshua became dependents of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) and were removed from parental custody based on findings their parents placed the minors at risk after the parents were found in possession of marijuana and heroin. The parents had been abusing these illegal substances in the home. They also had a history of drug use and the minors had been subject to a prior dependency, also involving drug use.
During the next six months, Jessica made substantive progress with her case plan. However, Jose did not participate in services. He admitted he was non compliant with drug treatment and he failed to appear for drug court.
At the six-month review hearing, the social worker recommended terminating Jose's services based on his noncompliance. Jose did not appear at the hearing and his whereabouts were unknown. The social worker reported Jose admitted that he continued to use drugs, and he appeared to be under the influence at one of his visits with the minors. Both parents argued the language of applicable statutes and court rules regarding the six-month review hearing required the court to continue services to both of them, regardless of Jose's progress with his case plan, as long as Jessica was receiving services and no selection and implementation hearing was scheduled. The court took the matter under submission.
After considering the parties' positions, the court ordered services for Jose to be continued because it was continuing services for Jessica and not setting a selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26. The court believed it had to continue Jose's services even though Jose had made no progress with his case plan.
The court continued the minors as dependents and set a 12-month review hearing. The Agency filed a timely notice of appeal.
This court takes judicial notice of the juvenile court's December 18, 2007, order issued following a 12-month review hearing. The court continued six additional months of services for Jessica and terminated Jose's services and finding he had not made substantive progress with the provisions of his case plan. (December 17, 2007 order.)
DISCUSSION
I
The Agency asserts the juvenile court erred when it continued Jose's services at the six-month review hearing. The evidence showed Jose had not participated or made progress with his reunification plan. The Agency argues there is nothing in the dependency statutes or the statutory system as a whole requiring the court to continue services for a noncompliant parent like Jose simply because the other parent has made progress with the case plan.
A
We need not decide the issues raised in this matter because the appeal is moot. An appellate court will not review questions which are moot and only of academic importance, nor will it determine abstract questions of law at the request of a party who shows no substantial rights can be affected by the decision. (Keefer v. Keefer (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 335, 337; see Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) The duty of an appellate court is to decide actual controversies and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law that cannot affect the matter at issue in the case before it. (In re Audrey D. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 34, 39, fn. 4.)
Further, 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 Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.) 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 Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404-405; In re Dylan T. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 769.)
At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court believed it did not have the discretion to terminate Jose's services. However, as this court clarified in In re Jesse W., the juvenile court did have the discretion to continue Jessica's services while terminating Jose's for noncompliance. In any event, regardless of whether it was proper for the court to continue Jose's services, no effective relief can be afforded the Agency as to the juvenile court's order because subsequent events in this matter make the case moot. At the 12-month review hearing, the trial court terminated Jose's services because he had not made any progress with his case plan or reunification services. Further, the Agency received guidance and clarification on this issue in In re Jesse W. These recent developments create a situation where no additional relief can be granted beyond that which was already obtained. (See In re Jessica K., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1315-1316.) Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., HALLER, J.