Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. NJ11207A, Michael Imhoff, Commissioner.
HUFFMAN, J.
In 1998 Jon H. was removed from the custody of his parents, Donna H. and John H. In 2000 the San Diego County juvenile dependency court appointed a guardian for Jon. In 2001 it terminated jurisdiction. In 2006 Jon became a ward of the San Diego County juvenile delinquency court. The dependency court vacated the guardianship order, appointed Kathleen G. and Donald G. as Jon's new guardians, and terminated jurisdiction. Jon's delinquency case was transferred to Riverside County where his guardians reside. In 2007 Donna and John filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition in the dependency court. The petition sought appointed counsel, Jon's removal from Kathleen and Donald's home and placement with Donna, enforcement of all court orders, and a finding Kathleen was in contempt for refusing to follow orders for telephone calls between John and Jon. In June the court summarily denied the petition.
Donna and John appeal, contending the court abused its discretion and denied them due process by summarily denying their petition, erred by failing to hold a contempt hearing, and erred by failing to follow Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1 by determining whether jurisdiction was in the San Diego County juvenile dependency court or the Riverside County juvenile delinquency court. Jon's counsel, Donna's counsel, John's counsel, and counsel for the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) have filed a stipulation for reversal of the judgment, remand with directions to vacate the order denying the Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and transfer the case to Riverside County, and immediate issuance of the remittitur. We accept the stipulation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8); In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
Reversing the order denying the petition and remanding with directions to vacate the same order would be redundant. We omit that portion from the directions. Also, a heading in the joint application and stipulation contains the phrase "application for dismissal." It does not appear the parties are seeking dismissal of the appeal.
DISCUSSION
"An appellate court shall not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the following: [¶] (A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. [¶] (B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement." (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)
The joint application and stipulation for reversal states the following. While this appeal was pending, Jon began having serious difficulties, including running away and deteriorating mental health. He needs help, and the parties agree the best means of helping him lies in transferring the case to Riverside County, where Jon, Kathleen, and Donald reside, and where Jon has an active delinquency case.
Our independent review of the record, summarized above, leads us to conclude we should accept the stipulation. First, there is no reasonable possibility the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected. The guardians reside in Riverside County, where the case will be transferred. While this is a confidential proceeding, the public has an interest in keeping children safe. A prompt resolution of the appeal also reduces the expense to the taxpaying public. Second, the reason the parties request reversal is to allow Jon to get the help he needs. Because accepting the stipulation will expeditiously accomplish this goal, the public trust will not be eroded. On the contrary, public trust in the courts and their orders will be advanced by knowing that the Agency, counsel, and the courts will seek reasonable solutions to avoid delays that might adversely affect children. (Cf. In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 381.) Finally, the parties' agreement will not lead to a risk of reducing any incentive for pretrial settlement. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The order is reversed. The case is remanded with directions to transfer the case to Riverside County. The remittitur is to issue forthwith.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. NARES, J.