Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeals from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 30-2009-00280790, Mary Fingal Schulte, Judge.
AdoptHelp Law Center and Mark E. Goldman; Law Office of Gradstein & Gorman and Marc Gradstein; John L. Dodd & Associates and John L. Dodd, for Appellant Stacey D.
Legal Aid Society of Orange County, Crystal Sims and Yolanda Omana; Snell & Wilmer, Richard A. Derevan and Todd E. Lundell, for Respondent Benjamin M.
OPINION
MOORE, J.
A little girl was born in Ohio in the summer of 2008. It appears the mother had misrepresented to the Ohio court and to the biological father that she was not pregnant, when in fact she was.
Stacey D., an adoptive mother from California, was ready and waiting when the child arrived. She transported the child to her home in California after having received the approval of the California and Ohio administrators for the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children. On July 1, 2008, Stacey D. commenced adoption proceedings in California. (Adoption of Baby Girl C. (Orange County Super. Ct., 2010, No. AD77120)) (California Adoption Proceedings).)
On July 3, 2008, the birth father filed, in the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, Juvenile Division, a paternity complaint. In that complaint, the birth father alleged that he was the biological father of Baby Girl C. He identified the birth mother and the date and location of the birth of Baby Girl C. Also on July 3, 2008, the birth father filed, in the same Ohio court, a custody complaint, in which he sought custody of the child. The Ohio court granted interim temporary custody of the child to the Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services—Children Services Division and granted the birth father parenting time. It also determined that the birth father was the biological father of the child and ordered that the birth certificate be changed to so reflect.
On July 1, 2009, Stacey D. filed a petition for the appointment of the guardian of the person of Baby Girl C. (Guardianship of Baby Girl C. (Orange County Super. Ct., 2010, No. 30-2009-00280790)) (California Guardianship Proceedings).) She stated that she had commenced proceedings to adopt the child, but if for any reason the adoption did not go through, she wanted to be appointed guardian. The court appointed Stacey D. the temporary guardian of the person of Baby Girl C. and letters of temporary guardianship issued.
On August 17, 2009, the court in the California Adoption Proceedings entered a minute order staying the California Adoption Proceedings pending certain proceedings in Ohio. In the formal stay order filed on November 9, 2009, the court in the California Adoption Proceedings also ordered that the child remain in the custody of Stacey D.
By minute order of January 25, 2010, the court, Judge Mary Fingal Schulte, terminated the temporary guardianship. A formal order was entered March 23, 2010. Stacey D. thereafter filed in this court a notice of appeal from the order terminating the guardianship and dismissing the California Guardianship Proceedings. (Stacey D. v. Benjamin M. (G043548) (the California Guardianship Appeal).)
Two formal orders were filed in the California Adoption Proceedings on July 2, 2010. In one, the court, Judge Michael J. Naughton, ruled: “[T]he Ohio Court shall take whatever necessary procedures to have Baby Girl [C.] returned to Ohio after July 16, 2010.” In the other, the court ruled: “The adoption petition of Stacey [D.] is stayed. The petition to determine parental rights of Benjamin [M.] pursuant to California Family Code section 7662 is hereby stayed on grounds of inconvenient forum and the court defers jurisdiction of the question of parental rights TO OHIO.”
On July 7, 2010, Stacey D. filed a notice of appeal from the July 2, 2010 orders in the California Adoption Proceedings. (Stacey D. v. Benjamin M. (G043887) (the California Adoption Appeal).)
Notwithstanding the appeal from the order dismissing the California Guardianship Proceedings, on July 9, 2010, Stacey D. filed, in the California Guardianship Proceedings, an ex parte application for reinstatement of the temporary guardianship. In the alternative, she requested that the California court stay its minute order of January 25 and its formal order of March 23, 2010, pending appeal. By minute order of July 9, 2010, the court in the California Guardianship Proceedings, Judge Mary Fingal Schulte, denied the ex parte application. The court stated that the application was nothing more than “a thinly disguised” motion for reconsideration, untimely made.
On July 9, 2010, Stacey D. filed, in the California Adoption Appeal, a petition for a writ of supersedeas. She sought an immediate stay of the July 2, 2010 orders in the California Adoption Proceedings requiring Baby Girl C. to be returned to Ohio after July 16, 2010. On July 13, 2010, Stacey D. filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas and request for immediate stay in the California Guardianship Appeal (Stacey D. v. Benjamin M. (G043548)). She requested the stay of the orders filed in the California Guardianship Proceedings on January 25, 2010, March 23, 2010, and July 9, 2010.
By order of July 13, 2010, filed in the California Adoption Appeal, we ordered the stay of the July 2, 2010 order permitting the Ohio court to take necessary procedures to have Baby Girl C. returned to Ohio after July 16, 2010. We further ordered that Baby Girl C. not be removed from Orange County, California without further order of this court.
On August 4, 2010, Stacey D. filed an appeal from the July 9, 2010 order denying reinstatement of the temporary guardianship. (Stacey D. v. Benjamin M. (G044022).) By order of August 20, 2010, we consolidated the two appeals arising out of the California Guardianship Proceedings, and we refer to those two appeals collectively as the California Guardianship Appeal.
On November 16, 2010, we heard oral argument on the petitions for a writ of supersedeas filed in the California Adoption Appeal and the California Guardianship Appeal. The causes of the writ petitions were submitted by orders of December 27, 2010. In January 2011, we vacated submission in the California Adoption Appeal in order to permit further briefing of certain issues.
Before argument was heard on the appeals in either the California Adoption Appeal or the California Guardianship Appeal, the parties informed this court that they had reached a settlement in the Ohio proceedings. They requested that oral argument on the appeals be continued pending completion of the documentation of the Ohio settlement agreement. To afford the parties an opportunity to finalize the settlement, we granted the requests to continue oral argument in both the California Adoption Appeal and the California Guardianship Appeal, and we vacated submission of the matter of the petition for a writ of supersedeas in the California Guardianship Appeal.
On April 29, 2011, the parties filed a joint supplemental status report stating that the Ohio settlement had been finalized. Pursuant to the settlement, legal custody of Baby Girl C. was awarded to Stacey D., Benjamin M. agreed to dismiss all complaints, etc., pending in the courts of Ohio and California, Stacey D. agreed to dismiss the adoption and guardianship proceedings pending in California, and specified visitation rights were granted to the paternal grandmother and Benjamin M.
On May 6, 2011, Stacey D. filed notices of abandonment of her appeals and requests for dismissal. However, in her filings she made no mention of her writ petitions, which are still pending. Because we heard oral argument on the writ petitions but have issued no final determinations with respect to them, they must be addressed.
In her petition for a writ of supersedeas filed in the California Guardianship Appeal, Stacey D. requested stays of three orders pertaining to the termination of the temporary guardianship. Inasmuch as Stacey D. has now been awarded legal custody of Baby Girl C., her request for temporary guardianship is moot.
Furthermore, in this opinion, we grant Stacey D.’s request for dismissal of the two consolidated appeals filed in the California Guardianship Appeal. A petition for a writ of supersedeas is deemed moot once the underlying appeal has been finally determined adversely to the petitioner. (Fleming v. Bennett (1941) 18 Cal.2d 888, 888-889; Lay v. Pacific Perforating Co. (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 452.) Here, the writ petition filed in the California Guardianship Appeal is dependent upon a viable appeal, the appeals and the writ petition are inextricably intertwined, and the subject matters of all of them are substantially identical. Because the appeals are dismissed, we deny the petition for writ of supersedeas, filed in the California Guardianship Appeal, as moot.
The appeals filed in the California Guardianship Appeal are DISMISSED at the request of Stacey D. The petition for a writ of supersedeas filed in the California Guardianship Appeal is DENIED as moot.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., ARONSON, J.