Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. NJ13526, Martin Staven, Judge. Dismissed.
McINTYRE, J.
Y.S. appeals following an order of the juvenile court declaring her minor children, Fernando G., Bryant G., and Madeline G. (together the minors) dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300, subdivision (b) and removing them from her custody under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Y.S. contends that after she was arrested and deported to Mexico, the court violated her due process rights when it did not enforce its previous visitation order allowing visits between herself and the minors.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a motion to augment the record. Y.S. did not oppose the motion. On September 6, 2007, this court ordered that the motion to augment the record be considered concurrently with the appeal. The Agency seeks to introduce a status review report containing new evidence showing that following the disposition hearing, the minors were placed with relatives in Mexico and now have daily visits with Y.S. Therefore, Y.S.'s arguments on appeal are moot.
We agree with the Agency. Accordingly, we grant the motion to augment and dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2006, the Agency filed petitions on behalf of Fernando, Bryant, and Madeline under section 300, subdivision (b). The petitions alleged the minors were at risk of suffering harm because Y.S. was unable to provide the minors with a safe and suitable home. Drug enforcement agents raided the minors' home and discovered loaded weapons, marijuana underneath the minors' beds, and about 1800 marijuana plants. The agents arrested Y.S. and the minors were placed in child protective custody. The court held a detention hearing, detained the minors in a licensed foster home, and ordered liberal supervised visits for Y.S.
At an initial jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Y.S. did not appear. Y.S. remained in federal custody and the court continued the hearing to provide Y.S. with the opportunity to appear at the hearing. Before the next hearing, the social worker submitted an addendum report indicating Y.S. had been deported to Mexico because of her status as a non-United States citizen. She could not attend court hearings or participate in supervised visits because she was not allowed to return to the United States. The situation was further complicated because Fernando was a Mexican national and Bryant and Madeline were United States citizens. The minors remained in foster care and Y.S. received visitation with the minors in the form of daily telephone calls.
The court held a contested jurisdiction hearing in January 2007, and sustained the allegations under section 300, subdivision (b) of the petitions. The court instructed the Agency to facilitate visitation between Y.S. despite the fact that Y.S. was living in Mexico and her minors lived in the United States. The social worker made several efforts to schedule visits, including a fence border visit, but was unsuccessful.
After numerous continuances, the court held a disposition hearing. The court declared the minors dependents of the court and removed them from Y.S.'s custody. The court confirmed its previous visitation order and gave the social worker the discretion to expand visits to include overnights and weekends. The mother timely filed a notice of appeal.
About two months later, the minors' paternal grandmother received clearance through social services in Mexico to have the minors placed in her care. The Agency facilitated a change of placement and moved the minors to live with their grandmother. The minors transitioned into their new home without incident and Y.S. began to have daily visits with the minors.
DISCUSSION
Y.S. asserts the juvenile court violated her due process rights when it failed to issue an order ensuring that liberal supervised visits would take place between her and the minors.
An appellate court will not review questions which are moot and only of academic importance, 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 either way. (Keefer v. Keefer (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 335, 337; see Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) The duty of an appellate court is to decide actual controversies and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law that cannot affect the matter at issue in the case before it. (In re Audrey D. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 34, 39, fn. 4.)
Further, 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.) We decide on a case-by-case basis whether subsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether our decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding. (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404-405; In re Dylan T. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 769.)
Here, no effective relief can be afforded Y.S. as to the juvenile court's orders.
We acknowledge that facilitating visits between Y.S. and the minors was not an easy process for the court and the Agency because of the unique circumstances of this case. Y.S. was in the United States illegally, committed a crime, was placed in federal custody and eventually deported to Mexico because of her non-citizen status. The minors remained in the United States. Y.S. was not permitted to leave Mexico to attend court hearings or for visits. The court and the social worker made several attempts to facilitate in person visits at the border. In the interim, the social worker ensured that Y.S. received daily, liberal supervised telephone visits with the minors. After the disposition hearing, the minors' paternal grandmother received clearance through social services and the minors were placed in her care in Mexico. Y.S. presently visits the minors on a daily basis at the grandmother's home.
Y.S. has received relief she sought in this appeal. She is not entitled to relief beyond that which she has already obtained. Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is moot.
DISPOSITION
The motion to augment is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.