Opinion
G033218
4-24-2007
MICHAEL J., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; LINDA ROGERS, as Conservator, etc., Real Party in Interest.
Bradley R. Kirk & Associates and Bradley R. Kirk for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Stephen M. Magro for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
At the parties request, we deny the instant writ petition as moot because the parties have effectuated a settlement.
This court issued an alternative writ to determine whether a conservator for a severely brain damaged woman, who was unable to speak or communicate, could initiate and prosecute proceedings to dissolve her marriage. Michael J., husband, opposed the dissolution. We initially issued a published opinion holding that the conservator, real party in interest Linda Rogers, did not have this power, but suggested that she pursue the alternate remedy of legal separation. Conservator successfully petitioned for rehearing, pointing out that husband could thwart the alternate remedy by refusing to consent to legal separation.
We thereupon referred the matter to our courts judicial settlement program. Following several settlement conferences, the parties agreed to a consensual separation, subject to the probate courts approval, with equalizing payments between the spouses. The parties could not reach an agreement about child support payments for the couples daughter, but agreed to defer to the family law courts determination.
The probate court approved the stipulation for settlement and issued an order allowing conservator to retain counsel to represent wifes interest in the family law court. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interests of the daughter.
In January 2007, the family law court entered an order for legal separation, and the parties made the agreed-upon equalizing payments. Subsequently the parties filed a stipulation asking this court to terminate the writ proceedings because of the completed settlement.
In light of the settlement and dismissal of the action, we deny the petition for writ of mandate as moot. (Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1014, fn. 3.) Thanks to the parties cooperative efforts in this tragic situation, they have been able to settle their financial issues through separation proceedings. We commend such efforts.
The petition is denied as moot. This opinion shall become final in this court within 10 days after filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).) The parties shall bear their own costs incurred in these proceedings.
We Concur:
MOORE, J.
IKOLA, J.