Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gerald G. Johnston, Judge. Super. Ct. No. A223659
Linda M. Fabian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, James C. Harvey and Beth L. Lewis, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
OPINION
ARONSON, J.
Pasquale C. appeals from an order granting the Orange County Public Guardian’s petition for reappointment as Pasquale’s conservator. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding a locked facility was the least restrictive placement alternative. Pasquale also contests the trial court’s imposition of certain disabilities, such as prohibiting his right to possess firearms or enter into contracts. While the appeal was pending, the trial court terminated Pasquale’s conservatorship. Because issues raised in this appeal are now moot, we dismiss the appeal.
In February 2004, the Orange County Public Guardian, John Williams, petitioned the superior court for appointment as conservator of the person and estate of Pasquale, based on a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance dependency. The court found Pasquale to be “gravely disabled” and granted the petition. A private, locked facility was determined to be the least restrictive alternative placement. The court reappointed the conservator in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
In March 2008, while this appeal from the 2007 order was pending, the court denied the Public Guardian’s petition for reappointment and terminated the conservatorship. The Public Guardian has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. Pasquale was invited to respond, but we have received no response.
An action originally based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if the questions raised have become moot by subsequent acts or events. (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) A question becomes moot when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief. (Consol. etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 863.)
Here, the trial court’s termination of Pasquale’s conservatorship freed him to make his own decisions regarding his care. It would be an idle act to address whether the court erred by placing Pasquale in a private, locked facility or should not have subjected him to certain disabilities. A decision on the merits would provide Pasquale no relief because he now has obtained his liberty and is not subject to the disputed placement order or any disability restrictions. Since this court cannot provide Pasquale with any relief, it is unnecessary to proceed to a formal judgment and therefore we dismiss the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.