Opinion
A156513
02-05-2020
In re J.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.W., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. Nos. JD02885501, JD02885401)
Defendant D.W., the presumed father (father) of dependent minors J.C. and L.W., contends the juvenile court deprived him of due process by denying his motion to compel plaintiff Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) to produce discovery at no cost because of his indigency. In the time since father filed his appeal, the juvenile court has terminated its jurisdiction over the minors. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
In light of our disposition, we provide only an abbreviated summary of the facts relating to the dependency case.
A. Jurisdiction and Disposition Proceedings
D.W. is the presumed father of minors J.C. and L.W. C.W., mother of both children and wife of D.W., is not a party to this appeal.
In October 2017, the Agency filed a petition on behalf of J.C. and L.W. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d), alleging that both parents physically abused the children and that their 16-year-old sibling sexually abused them on multiple occasions. At the detention hearing, the court authorized the Agency to detain the minors and set a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for October 26, 2017.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
After a continuance, the contested hearing occurred over several days in January 2018. The court declared J.C. and L.W. dependents of the court, removed the children from the home, and ordered the Agency to provide family reunification services. After several continuances, the six-month review hearing was set for September 20, 2018, and the twelve-month review hearing was set for February 8, 2019.
On September 5, 2018, the court informed father that the East Bay Family Defenders law firm (EBFD) had been appointed to represent him.
At the September 20 hearing, the court adopted the Agency's recommendations from its status review report, maintained dependency, and continued family reunification services. B. Discovery Proceedings
On January 24, 2019, 15 days before the February 8 12-month review hearing, father's counsel emailed the Agency's counsel with a request to produce 21 categories of discovery within ten days, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 5.546. Father also requested that the Agency either fax, save on a USB flash drive to be provided to the Agency by father, or print out the requested documents.
All further undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
The following day, counsel for the Agency responded in an email stating the Agency's social worker "will prepare redacted copies of documents and you can set a time to review them and decide what you want copied. We will then let you know what the cost will be." Counsel also wrote that she would inform father's counsel when the documents were ready to view.
On January 31, 2019, father filed a motion to compel based on the Agency's alleged failure to provide the discovery. Father argued the discovery was relevant and sought an order requiring the Agency to produce the discovery at no cost.
The Agency opposed the motion on multiple grounds, including that the Agency complied with rule 5.546's discovery requirements by allowing father to inspect the documents and have the social worker make copies at a fee of $0.10 per page, and that no statutory or decisional authority permitted the court to order production of documents free of charge.
The court heard father's motion to compel discovery on February 6, 2019. It granted father's motion to compel disclosure of discovery but denied the motion to compel production of documents at the Agency's expense. It ordered the Agency to disclose the requested materials to father's counsel immediately and continued the contested hearing to March 5 and 7, 2019.
Father requests that we judicially notice the notices of appeal filed in other divisions of this court in the following unconsolidated cases: A156434, Alameda County Superior Court case No. JD-029106 (Division 5); A156489, Alameda County Superior Court case No. JD-029265/JD-0292266 (Division 1); A156510, Alameda County Superior Court case No. JD-029649 (Division 2); and A156749, Alameda County Superior Court case No. JD-030496 (Division 3). We deny the request, as the filing of other appeals is irrelevant to our disposition. (See American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431, 441, fn. 7 [a court may judicially notice a variety of matters (Evid. Code, §§ 450 et seq.), but only relevant material may be noticed]; Evid. Code, § 459.)
II. DISCUSSION
The parties agree that father had a right to obtain discovery under rule 5.546. The parties disagree, however, on the manner in which the Agency was required to produce the discovery and who should bear the costs of production.
While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over the minors, who have returned to live with their parents. The Agency argues that the appeal is therefore moot. Father agrees that the appeal is moot, but he urges us to exercise our discretion to review the appeal on the merits. (See Laurie S. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 195, 199.) We decline to do so.
" '[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have 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.) "As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in dependency proceedings moot." (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) "However, a reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is a question capable of repetition, yet evading review." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.)
Father contends that "[t]he mere fact that there were five separate appeals on the very same issue presented" that have been filed in each division of this Court "shows that the issue is one of public importance that is capable of repetition." Father's argument is unpersuasive. The filing of multiple appeals in related cases, by itself, does not establish that the questions presented in this appeal are " 'of great public import and transcend[] the concerns of these particular parties.' " (In re Stevens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1232.)
We also reject Father's assertion that this appeal raises questions that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (In re Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1404.) Division One of this Court in In re William M.W. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 573 squarely addressed the statutory and constitutional issues raised in this appeal. Thus, we find no material questions remain for our determination. (See Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) That father may disagree with certain aspects of the In re William M.W. decision does not compel a different conclusion. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to address the merits of father's appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
BROWN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
POLLAK, P. J. /s/_________
STREETER, J.