Opinion
A153566
11-27-2018
In re I.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.H., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JD-028736-01, JD-028736-02)
In this appeal from a juvenile dependency action, R.H. (Father) requests that we "reverse and/or find void the findings and orders made by the juvenile court on January 4, 2017." According to Father, the order removing I.H. (Minor) from his care was procedurally improper and not supported by substantial evidence. Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) argues this appeal is moot because Minor has been returned to Father's care and the dependency case has been dismissed. We agree with the Agency and dismiss this appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2017, the Agency filed a Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of Minor, who was 13 years old at the time. Minor lived with her Father. Her mother, J.H. (Mother), resided in Las Vegas, Nevada. Mother and Father separated six months earlier, in March 2017.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code.
On September 6, 2017, Minor had a physical altercation with Father's girlfriend. It was reported that Father's girlfriend pulled Minor's hair, hit Minor, and sat on her, resulting in bruising and scratches. Father blamed Minor for the altercation, and he continued to allow his girlfriend to have access to Minor. (§ 300, subd. (b).) It was further alleged that Father was unwilling to have Minor return to his home, and he made no arrangements for her care. (§ 300, subd. (g).)
According to the detention report, Minor was delivered into protective custody on September 7, 2017. Father stated Minor was "diagnosed with ADHD and [had] a history of behavioral problems in school and at home." Father claimed Minor was "very emotional over the loss of her mother in the home . . . ." Father stated Minor was "in need of mental health services and a medication evaluation." Father was "not comfortable having [Minor] return home until she receives appropriate treatment." Father hoped Minor could be placed with Mother.
At the detention hearing, on September 12, 2017, the court found there was prima facie evidence Minor was a child as described in section 300, and the court ordered Minor detained. In its jurisdiction/disposition report, the Agency recommended Minor be released to the care of Mother. The report stated Mother was in agreement with the recommendation, but Father was not. The court referred the matter to mediation, and set a contested hearing for October 30, 2017. The court gave the Agency discretion to place Minor with Mother. The same day, on September 26, 2017, Minor was released to Mother's care.
In early October 2017, the Agency filed a first amended petition correcting the spelling of Father's name. On October 30, 2017, the Agency filed a second amended dependency petition alleging Mother was "unable or unwilling to continue to have [Minor] in her care."
The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed November 8, 2017, stated Minor was released to Mother's care in Nevada, but "[o]n 10/27/2017, [Minor] was brought into protective custody by Clark County CPS and remained in their care until transported back to Alameda County on 11/02/2017 and [she was] taken to the Alameda County Assessment Center. On 11/05/2017, she was placed in . . . [a] group home."
The report stated that, as a result of Minor's behavior, Mother and Minor were forced to move out of an apartment, and they were living in a hotel room. Mother was concerned she would not be able to find employment in Las Vegas because of Minor's "behavioral needs," and she agreed Minor should be removed from her care. After Minor was returned to Alameda County on November 2, 2017, she left the assessment center "on an AWOL status." The next day, Minor returned to the center and was placed in a group home.
Father reported he was "angry [Minor] was ever removed from his care. . . . He said that he planned on taking [Minor] to see a child psychiatrist . . . before she was removed from his care. . . . [Father] stated that he was willing to do whatever it takes to have [Minor] back in his care. He stated that he wants to take [Minor] for a medical evaluation to develop an understanding of which medication would be appropriate for her. In addition, [Father] reported that he has information [on] a youth program (name unknown) that his insurance would cover, aimed at behavior correction."
After a contested hearing on November 30, 2017, the court found true the allegations in the second amended petition, adjudged Minor a dependent child of the court, removed Minor from the care of Mother, and placed Minor in the care of Father. The court ordered family maintenance services for Father, referred Minor for a medical evaluation, and ordered that Minor was not to be left alone with Father's girlfriend.
On December 21, 2017, the Agency filed a supplemental petition under section 387, alleging Father reported he could "no longer care for" Minor. Father stated Minor had been "running away from his home and staying at different family and friend's houses." On December 19, 2017, a team decision meeting was held, during which Father signed a "Voluntary Release of Child Custody." On the same day, Minor was brought into protective custody, and was "awaiting placement at the Assessment Center."
At the detention hearing, on December 22, 2017, the court found that "continuance of the minor in the home of the father . . . is at this time contrary to the child's welfare." The court ordered Minor detained. In its jurisdiction/disposition report, the Agency recommended the order placing Minor in the home of her Father be set aside, and that Minor should be placed in the home of a foster parent.
Father and Mother were not present at the January 4, 2018 hearing on the supplemental petition. Father's attorney stated he had spoken to Father, "and he's in favor of my proceeding without him today. He's been missing a lot of work, but I asked him, and I can weigh in on his opinions." When asked about his client's waiver of rights, the attorney stated, "I do have authority to submit on this limited 387 petition to out-of-home . . . ." Father's attorney confirmed that he explained to Father his rights and that Father understood them. Father's attorney suggested the Agency should explore placing Minor in a program in Utah. Mother's attorney indicated Mother was "submitting . . . on the 387 [because Mother] is unable, [and] unwilling to continue to care for" Minor.
The court found true the allegations of the supplemental petition, set aside the order placing Minor in Father's home, and committed Minor to the care of the Agency for a suitable placement. Father appeals.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Father makes a number of arguments, including that his voluntary release of child custody was invalid, that the court failed to properly determine, at the January 4, 2018 hearing, whether Father had waived his rights, and the court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The Agency responds that we should dismiss this appeal as moot because, on June 26, 2018, the court returned Minor to Father's custody, dismissed the dependency action, and terminated jurisdiction over Minor. We agree the appeal is moot.
We grant the Agency's request that we take judicial notice of the minutes from the June 26, 2018 hearing. Father disputes the finality of this order, but has not shown that any party appealed the order dismissing the dependency case.
I.
Father's Appeal Is Moot
As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot. (In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330.) However, dismissal for mootness is not automatic and must be decided "on a case-by-case basis." (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404.) "An appellate court will dismiss an appeal when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief." (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58-59 (N.S.).) Nevertheless, "an appellate court may exercise its discretion to resolve an issue even when effective relief cannot be given to the parties in some circumstances, such as when there is an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, there is a likelihood that the controversy will recur, or material questions remain for the court's determination." (Id. at p. 60, fn. 3.) "[T]he critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error." (Id. at p. 60.)
Here, we can grant no effective relief because, at the June 26, 2018 hearing, the court returned Minor to the custody of Father, and dismissed the dependency case. Father challenges procedural aspects of the proceedings that resulted in the court setting aside its order placing Minor in Father's home, and he also argues the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. But Minor has been returned to Father's custody, and the dependency case dismissed, so there is no effective relief we can grant Father. (N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 [dismissing appeal as moot where "there remains no effective relief we could give Mother beyond that which she has already obtained"].)
We are not persuaded by Father's attempt to articulate an issue of broad public interest, or his claim that the purported errors will "infect[] the outcome of subsequent proceedings." Father, for example, identifies himself as "the disadvantaged parent," and claims the June 26, 2018 order is unfavorable to him because "it failed to make a section 390 dismissal of the petition." (Italics omitted.)
Section 390 provides "[a] judge of the juvenile court in which a petition was filed, at any time before the minor reaches the age of 21 years, may dismiss the petition or may set aside the findings and dismiss the petition if the court finds that the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor require the dismissal, and that the parent or guardian of the minor is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation."
To the extent we understand these arguments, we reject them. The June 26, 2018 order dismissed the dependency case and returned Minor to Father's custody. Thus, the order was favorable to Father. Father fails to explain how the court's findings are the basis of any current order that is adverse to him. (N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 61.) Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to dismiss his appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
We dismiss this appeal as moot.
/s/_________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
/s/_________
Simons, J.
/s/_________
Bruiniers, J.