From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Elizabeth P.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jun 9, 2009
No. D054061 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2009)

Opinion


In re ELIZABETH P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARMEN P., Defendant and Appellant. D054061 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division June 9, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SJ11676, Susan Huguenor, Judge.

IRION, J.

Carmen P. appeals an order granting a request by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) to place her daughter, Elizabeth P., out of state under the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (Am. Code section 7900 et seq.) (ICPC). She contends the count abused its discretion because evidence was not presented of ICPC approval of the placement or that the proposed caretaker had passed required background clearances. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Elizabeth was placed with Carmen in 2001 when she was three years old. Carmen later adopted Elizabeth and two younger children, Angelica P. and Manuel P.

In August 2006 the Agency removed the children from Carmen's custody and petitioned on behalf of then eight-year-old Elizabeth under section 300, subdivision (i), alleging she had been subjected to acts of cruelty, including being forced to stand for hours as punishment, tied to a chair, not allowed to use the toilet until she soiled herself, hit with a belt or a cord, required to sleep and eat on the floor and deprived of food. The Agency also petitioned on behalf of six-year-old Angelica and three-year-old Manuel under section 300, subdivision (j), alleging they were at risk because of the abuse to Elizabeth. On October 11 the Agency filed an amended petition, adding further allegations. The court ordered Elizabeth, Angelica and Manuel detained.

Subsequently, Carmen's husband, who had described the abuse of Elizabeth to authorities, recanted his accusations. On February 1, 2007, Carmen submitted to amended petitions, and the court dismissed the subdivision (i) and (j) allegations and found true allegations under section 300, subdivision (b) that the children had been subjected to neglect.

However, Elizabeth then began to tell her therapist about how Carmen had abused her. Based on Elizabeth's disclosures, on April 4, 2007, the Agency filed subsequent petitions under section 342, alleging Elizabeth had been subjected to acts of cruelty under section 300, subdivision (i), and that Angelica and Manuel were at substantial risk under section 300, subdivision (j).

The jurisdictional hearing on the section 342 petitions began on January 14 and ended March 11, 2008. It involved many days of testimony from numerous witnesses. At the close of the hearing, the court found the allegations true by clear and convincing evidence. The court continued the children as dependents of the juvenile court and found reasonable services had been provided, but that Carmen had made no progress with her case plan. It terminated her services and set a section 366.26 hearing.

Subsequently, Elizabeth's court appointed special advocate and the social worker reported that in July 2008 Elizabeth sexually acted out with a boy in the group home where she was living. Although there was concern about the level of supervision at the facility, Elizabeth had been showing improvement and was benefiting from therapy. A potential caretaker for Elizabeth in another state had been having some telephone contact with Elizabeth and an evaluation of this potential placement was initiated.

At a special hearing on October 30, 2008, the Agency requested the court authorize moving Elizabeth to the out-of state placement. Counsel indicated there had been approval of the placement through the ICPC and argued Elizabeth had improved so that she no longer needed the level of care that a group home provided. Elizabeth's counsel approved the move and noted Elizabeth also desired the move. Carmen opposed Elizabeth moving out of state. The court signed the placement authorization.

DISCUSSION

Carmen asserts the juvenile court erred by authorizing Elizabeth's out-of-state placement without evidence of ICPC approval or evidence the proposed caretaker had passed required background clearances. After the filing of Carmen's opening brief, the Agency moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and sought to augment the record with a certified copy of an Agency report, dated March 5, 2009, stating Elizabeth had been returned to California and would not be returned to the out-of-state placement. Carmen does not oppose the motion to augment the record, but argues the appeal is not moot because Elizabeth could be returned to that placement in the future.

I. Motion to Augment the Record:

A reviewing court may accept additional evidence in an appropriate case. (In re Salvador M. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422.) Accepting evidence that Elizabeth has been returned to California from her out-of-state placement does not violate the proscription in In re Beth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 410, 412-413 against considering postjudgment evidence on appeal because the evidence offered does not go to the merits of the appeal and is not presented for the purpose of reversing the juvenile court's order. The motion to augment the record on appeal with additional evidence is granted.

II. Motion to Dismiss the Appeal:

An appellate court will not review questions which are moot and only of academic interest, nor will it determine abstract questions of law at the request of a party who shows no substantial rights can be affected by the decision. (Keefer v. Keefer (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 335, 337.) An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.)

Here, the issue has become moot because Elizabeth has been returned from her out-of-state placement, and is now in a placement in California. Thus, this court is not able to grant any relief as to Elizabeth's former placement. We decline to exercise our discretion to consider the merits of Carmen's argument. The appeal is dismissed as moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., NARES, J.


Summaries of

In re Elizabeth P.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jun 9, 2009
No. D054061 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2009)
Case details for

In re Elizabeth P.

Case Details

Full title:In re ELIZABETH P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Jun 9, 2009

Citations

No. D054061 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2009)