Opinion
B165296.
11-19-2003
In re BRIAN L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUDITH R., Defendant and Appellant.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor Roslynn R. No appearance for Minor Brian L. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, and Pamela S. Landeros, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On an earlier appeal, we rejected a mothers challenge to the order removing two of her children from her home but reversed an order terminating reunification services and remanded for further proceedings. While that appeal was pending, the mother filed a petition pursuant to section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The dependency court denied that petition, and this appeal is from that order. We affirm.
All section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
A.
Judith R. has three children. The eldest, Sherri R., tested positive for drugs at the time of her 1991 birth and was the subject of earlier dependency proceedings, which were concluded in 1995; Sherri now lives with her maternal uncle. Brian L. was born in 1993 and became the subject of dependency court proceedings as a result of his parents drug use and violent confrontations. Brian was later returned to Judiths home, and jurisdiction was terminated in 1998. Brian and the youngest child, Roslynn R., again came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services in 1999 following Judiths incarceration on a drug charge. Judith complied with a voluntary plan and the 1999 file was "closed" in February 2001.
In June 2001, Judith was arrested following a fight with her live-in boyfriend, and Brian and Roslynn were taken into protective custody. A petition was filed and family maintenance services were ordered. In May and June 2002, a supplemental petition was sustained, "reunification services" were terminated, and a section 366.26 hearing was set. On Judiths appeal, we rejected her challenges to the evidence supporting the dependency courts findings vis-à-vis the petition, but agreed with her contention that family maintenance services had been ordered, not reunification services, and that she had not received notice of the courts intent to terminate reunification services. We remanded the matter to the dependency court to reconsider that issue after appropriate notice to Judith, and further details about this case up to that point may be found in our opinion on the earlier appeal. (In re Brian L. (June 25, 2003, B159944) nonpub. opn.].)
B.
In October 2002 (while the earlier appeal was pending), Judith filed a section 388 petition in which she asked the dependency court to vacate the May and June orders denying reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing (that is, to do precisely what she was asking us to do). The court heard and denied the petition in December, selected long-term foster care as the permanent plan for Brian and Roslynn, and provided for regular review by the court. In February 2003, Judith filed a notice of appeal from the order denying her section 388 petition. We filed our opinion on the first appeal in June, and remanded the matter to the dependency court, but there is nothing in this record about the proceedings, if any, on remand from the first appeal.
DISCUSSION
We agree with the Department that this appeal is moot because it raises the same issues raised on the earlier appeal, and because it does not seek any relief from the order selecting the childrens permanent plan, and because it ignores our remand to the dependency court. (In re Pablo D. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 759, 761.) It adds nothing to rephrase this appeal in terms of Judiths section 388 petition — because the only relief she sought by way of that petition was the very same relief she sought on appeal, to wit: reconsideration of the reunification services issue, and a delay with regard to the section 366.26 hearing. We ordered further review of the reunification services issue, and the section 366.26 hearing has already been held. Since Judith does not question the courts permanent plan selection, and since we ordered further proceedings that were to take place after the section 388 petition was denied, there is nothing more to be said at this time. (In re Shawna M. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1691 [on remand, the dependency court may consider any new issues].)
When we denied the Departments motion to dismiss the appeal in August, we assumed Judiths reply brief would explain the relevancy of this appeal and the result of her post-remand efforts. Instead, her reply brief claims (without reference to the record) that the first appeal did not afford her complete relief because we did not order the dependency court to grant reunification services, only to reconsider the issue, and she does not tell us what happened on remand. There is nothing in the record about any further proceedings, and we do not know whether Judith even bothered to seek the additional hearing to which she is entitled by reason of her first appeal. Since the only thing Judith says is that her section 388 petition should have been granted, and since she never tells us what she thinks that would accomplish at this stage, there is simply nothing more to be said.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the section 388 petition is affirmed.
We concur: SPENCER, P.J., ORTEGA, J.