Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County No. 509202. Linda A. McFadden, Judge.
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Carrie Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
CORNELL, J.
Appellant Doris A. challenges the juvenile court’s order placing her son, Frank P., with his biological father and dismissing the dependency proceeding. Frank P. is now of legal age; therefore, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Frank P. and his three younger siblings were removed from their mother’s care in 2006 because the mother’s mental illness placed the children at substantial risk. In a prior appeal, In re Frank P. et al. (Apr. 4, 2007, F051083) [nonpub. opn.], we affirmed the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order.
At the 12-month review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency proceeding pertaining to Frank and issued an exit order providing that Frank’s biological father, Manuel, would have sole legal and physical custody and Doris would be permitted supervised visitation. Doris appealed.
Frank was 17 years old at the time of the review hearing. Subsequent to the issuance of the exit order and while this appeal was pending, Frank turned 18 years of age.
DISCUSSION
Frank is now legally an adult. “Although a case may originally present an existing issue …, if, before decision is reached, it has, through acts of the parties or other cause, lost that existent character, it is rendered moot and may not be considered. [Citations.]” (National Assn. of Wine Bottlers v. Paul (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 741, 746 .) Thus, “[w]hen it appears that a controversy … from which an appeal has been taken no longer exists, it is the duty of the court to dismiss the appeal.” (Bollotin v. Workman Service Co. (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 339, 342.) A case is moot when any ruling by this court “can have no practical impact or provide appellants effectual relief.” (Downtown Palo Alto Com. for Fair Assessment v. City Council (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 384, 391.)
Because Frank is an adult, a decision on the merits of this case “can have no practical impact or provide appellant[] effectual relief.” (Downtown Palo Alto Com. for Fair Assessment v. City Council, supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at p. 391.) Frank is no longer subject to custody orders or dependency proceedings and is free to make his own decision as to where he chooses to live.
We, however, have the inherent power to retain a case and decide it on its merits, even though it is moot, where the issues are important and of continuing interest. (Burch v. George (1994) 7 Cal.4th 246, 253, fn. 4; Honig v. Doe (1988) 484 U.S. 305, 317-323 (maj. opn. of Brennan, J.); see Honig, at p. 330 (conc. opn. of Rehnquist, C.J.).) “[I]f a pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, the court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot.” (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23; see, e.g., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712, 715-716; County of Madera v. Gendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804.)
We are not persuaded to exercise this discretion here because the issues raised are fact specific to this case and do not pose legal questions of broad public interest likely to recur.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: VARTABEDIAN, Acting P.J., LEVY, J.