Opinion
No. B221014 No. JV45062
07-22-2010
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.O., Defendant and Appellant.
Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, forDefendant and Appellant.Warren R. Jensen, County Counsel, Leslie H. Kraut, Deputy CountyCounsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Warren R. Jensen, County Counsel, Leslie H. Kraut, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
GILBERT, P.J.
L.O., mother of C.B. and D.B., (Mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court denying her modification petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 8, 2006, the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition on behalf of 14-year-old C.B. ("C.") and 10-year-old D.B. ("D."). DSS alleged that Mother had pulled C.s hair and forcefully covered her mouth, injuring her lip. C. also reported that her stepfather had pushed her and urged Mother to hit her. DSS alleged that Mother suffers from mental and emotional instability and has associated with violent men, thereby exposing her children to repeated domestic violence. The childrens father (Father) was incarcerated following his conviction of a crime of domestic violence. (§ 300, subds. (b), (c).)
The juvenile court ordered the children detained. DSS placed them in the home of a maternal aunt and uncle. The court later sustained the dependency allegations against Mother and Father, continued the children as dependent children, and ordered DSS to provide reunification services to the family.
Prior to the 12-month review hearing, DSS recommended that the juvenile court terminate family reunification services to Mother because she had not participated in the services, had failed to visit her children during the prior 12 months, and had not contacted the social worker. On October 3, 2007, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had not participated in family reunification services. The court terminated her services and then set the matter for permanent planning.
We affirmed the order in In re C.B. (July 30, 2008, B202761) [nonpub. opn.]). Our opinion noted that Mother had dismissed two court-appointed attorneys, accused the attorneys of unethical conduct, and requested to represent herself. Although Mother wrote letters to the court and stated that she intended to employ private counsel, she did not employ counsel nor request a third courtappointed attorney. Neither did she appear in court after September 12, 2006.
On March 4, 2008, the juvenile court appointed a third attorney to represent Mother.
On August 25, 2008, Mother filed a modification petition pursuant to section 388, requesting that the juvenile court remove the children from the home of the aunt and uncle due to allegations of abuse. The court summarily denied the modification petition. Mother filed a notice of appeal, but we later dismissed the appeal as abandoned. (In re C.B. (June 23, 2009, B211576) [nonpub. order].)
Approximately four months later, the aunt and uncle requested that DSS remove the children from their custody. DSS then placed C. with her paternal grandmother and D. in therapeutic foster care.
On September 11, 2009, the juvenile court held a post-permanency hearing. DSS filed a status review report which stated that D. wished to return to the home of his aunt and uncle. DSS informed the court that the aunt and uncle refused D.s return following his successful completion of mental health treatment. DSS stated that "[the aunt] will contact this social worker when she and her husband would like to revisit the possibility of future placement."
On October 27, 2009, Mother filed another modification petition. She requested that D. be removed from foster care and returned to the home of his aunt and uncle. Mother alleged that D. was unhappy in foster care, he had completed mental health treatment, and that his aunt and uncle desired his return. She attached this statement from the aunt (signed by the aunt and uncle) to her petition: "[D.] has ask[ed] me several times if he could come back and live with me and my husband, my husband... and myself are both in agreement that we would love to have [D.] back in our home. He has made vast improvements in all areas of his life and we are very proud of him and how he has grown. It would please all of us greatly to have him back in our home." The juvenile court summarily denied the petition, ruling that Mother did not state new evidence or changed circumstances.
Mother appeals and contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the modification petition without an evidentiary hearing. (The juvenile court has terminated family reunification services to Father and he is not a party to this appeal.)
DSS responds that Mothers appeal is moot because the aunt and uncle since have informed DSS and the juvenile court that they are not yet prepared to reaccept D. into their custody.
We grant DSSs request to take judicial notice of the appellate record in Mothers fifth appeal in these proceedings, case No. B223143. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subds. (a), (c); In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1417.) Earlier, we granted Mothers request that we take judicial notice of the appellate records in the first, second, and third appeals: In re C.B., supra, B202761; In re C.B., supra, B211576; In re C.B. (Feb. 18, 2010, B218328) [nonpub. order].
DISCUSSION
Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily denying her modification petition, asserting that she alleged changed circumstances-the aunt and uncles willingness to have custody of D. returned. She adds that the denial deprived her of due process of law. (In re Hashem H. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1801.)
We agree with DSS that Mothers contention is moot in view of the juvenile courts order made on February 24, 2010, stating that D.s placement in foster care was appropriate. At that hearing, Mother offered declaratory evidence from D.s aunt, stating the opposite that the aunt was not then prepared to resume care and custody of D. Thus, subsequent events in the dependency proceedings have rendered Mothers appeal moot. A favorable decision for Mother here could have no effect. (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 [appeal becomes moot when occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant effective relief].) Dismissal of Mothers appeal is the appropriate remedy.
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
Dodie A. Harman, William Kelsay, Judges
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo