Opinion
A166638
06-05-2023
In re J.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. L.L., Defendant and Respondent. SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Appellant,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J44508)
Fujisaki, J.
After terminating reunification services for L.L. (Mother), the mother of J.L. (Minor), and setting the matter for a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the juvenile court granted Mother's request for an additional six months of reunification services with Minor. The Solano County Department of Health and Social Services (the Department) appeals, arguing: (1) Mother failed to establish a substantial change of circumstances warranting additional services, and the court failed to make a proper finding of such a change of circumstances; (2) the court's determination that additional reunification services were in Minor's best interests was flawed; and (3) the court committed misconduct and abused its discretion by prejudging the case, excluding evidence, and showing bias in favor of Mother. Mother argues, among other things, that the appeal is moot. We agree the appeal is moot and so we will dismiss it.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Factual and Procedural Background
Minor was born in early 2014. In June 2019, the Department filed a dependency petition alleging Mother placed Minor and his two older siblings, A.L. and O.C., at substantial risk of physical harm and neglect due to her mental health issues, including depression and attempting suicide in May and June 2019 (§ 300, subd. (b)). The Department further alleged that the whereabouts of the respective fathers of A.L. and O.C., and of Minor, were unknown (§ 300, subd. (g)). The juvenile court detained Minor and his siblings from their fathers, but not from Mother.
In November 2019, the Department filed a supplemental dependency petition alleging that Mother was allowing her boyfriend, M.S., to physically discipline A.L. and O.C. in an excessive manner. The petition included allegations that M.S. grabbed A.L. by his neck and forcefully moved him such that A.L.'s head banged against a wall, and that M.S. dragged O.C. by her legs to her room. In January 2020, the juvenile court sustained the allegations, detained the children from Mother, and ordered the Department to provide reunification services.
Prior to the 12-month status review hearing, the Department reported Mother was not in compliance with the objectives of her case plan. For instance, Mother had made minimal effort to obtain independent housing, despite M.S. expressing that A.L. was not welcome to return to his home, and despite Mother indicating that M.S. continued to kick her out of the home and rendered her homeless when he became angry. Mother also made minimal and inconsistent effort to engage in mental health services. Though Mother completed one online parenting class, she declined a referral to another, saying she no longer wanted to reunify with the children. At a status review hearing in March 2021, Mother submitted to the Department's recommendation that reunification services be terminated. The court terminated services and ordered the matter be set for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
In May 2022, the juvenile court held a section 366.26 hearing where Mother submitted to the Department's recommended permanent plan for A.L. and O.C. As to Minor, however, Mother requested a trial and filed a "JV-180" form seeking to vacate the section 366.26 hearing and to reinstate reunification services for six months. Mother's request was made on the grounds that she and M.S. completed an anger management class and a parenting class; she attended a mental health appointment but was told she did not meet the criteria for "specialty" mental health services (though she was also told she might qualify for non-specialty mental health services); and she reached out to the Department requesting that visits with Minor be reinstated. Both Mother and M.S. expressed a willingness to participate in any services the Department recommended. The Department filed opposition to the request, noting numerous concerns existing at the time the court terminated reunification services which Mother failed to address.
The hearing on Mother's request took place in November 2022. The social worker assigned to the case testified, as did Mother and M.S. Ultimately, the juvenile court granted Mother's request and ordered the Department to provide her an additional six months of reunification services pursuant to section 366.3, subdivision (f). The court increased Mother's visitation, and ordered that an interpreter be provided and Mother be permitted to speak Tagalog during visits. The court found that Mother established changed circumstances and that further reunification services were in Minor's best interest. The court set a six-month review hearing in April 2023. The Department filed this appeal.
Discussion
The Department raises a number of challenges to the juvenile court's order granting Mother an additional six-months of reunification services. Specifically, the Department argues the court erred in granting additional services because Mother failed to show a substantial change of circumstances and also failed to establish that granting her additional services was in Minor's best interest. The Department also contends that the court failed to make a finding of a substantial change of circumstances, and that it committed misconduct and abused its discretion by prejudging the case, excluding evidence, and showing bias in favor of Mother. Mother argues, among other things, that the appeal is moot because she already received the six months of services granted by the court. We agree with Mother's contention.
"A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court 'can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief.'" (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.) When a party challenges an order granting additional services, but the services have already been received by the parents, the appeal is moot. (In re Pablo D. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 759, 760-761 (Pablo D.).) Here, the juvenile court ordered the Department to provide Mother with six additional months of reunification services and set the matter for a review hearing in April 2023. As the parties recognize, six months has elapsed since the issuance of that order. As "we cannot rescind services that have already been received," any decision in this case will not provide an effective remedy. (Pablo D., at p. 761.)
The Department raises a number of arguments attempting to forestall this outcome. The Department first argues we should exercise our discretion to consider this appeal because it has found no published authority addressing a child protective services agency's appeal from an order reinstating reunification services pursuant to section 388 and our decision "could provide important instruction in that regard." It is unclear, however, what useful instruction the Department anticipates, simply because this is an agency's appeal.
The Department also contends this appeal presents important claims of judicial misconduct that could provide guidance to dependency courts. As the Department itself acknowledges, however, "[t]he propriety of judicial comment is evaluated on a case-by-case basis." We see little utility in a decision that applies established case law to the specific facts of this moot case.
Last, the Department suggests the appeal is not moot because trial is pending regarding the termination of Mother's services. On this point, we grant the Department's unopposed request for judicial notice of the minute order of the juvenile court, dated April 18, 2023, showing that Mother has requested a contested hearing, which was set for May 26, 2023. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.) Nonetheless, we reject the suggestion that the contested hearing somehow alters the mootness of this appeal. (See, e.g., Pablo D., supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 761.) As indicated, the Department seeks reversal of the order granting Mother an additional six months of reunification services that she already received. We cannot order that relief or otherwise return the case to where it stood prior to the November 2022 hearing. The Department provides no authority supporting a contrary conclusion.
Before concluding, we note the Department had filed a motion to stay the juvenile court's order on February 3, 2023. Our order denying that motion explained that the proper procedure for requesting a stay of enforcement of a judgment or order pending appeal is to file a petition for writ of supersedeas (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 917.7, 923; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.112), which the Department did not do. And as our order also indicated, the Department had requested the stay in a belated manner, after the time for filing its opening brief on appeal had already expired.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: Tucher, P.J., Rodríguez, J.