Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. NJ13013, Michael J. Imhoff, Commissioner.
McDONALD, J.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) appeals a juvenile court's order following a postpermanency review hearing. The Agency argues the court erred when it did not terminate its jurisdiction over minor Joseph A. after it placed him with his mother Nichole in Louisiana. It contends that by continuing jurisdiction, the court placed the Agency in the position of retaining responsibility for a child's safety in an out-of-state placement over which it had no control or ability to provide assistance.
Nichole filed a motion to dismiss the Agency's appeal. She asserts the arguments raised by the Agency are moot because the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction at a later review hearing. We conclude the appeal is moot because Joseph is no longer a dependent of the trial court, the relief Agency requests in its appeal. Accordingly, we grant Nichole's motion and dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2005 the Agency filed a petition on behalf of six-year-old Joseph under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c). The petition alleged Joseph did not have a parent or guardian available to provide him with proper care. Joseph had been living with his great-aunt and uncle until they could no longer meet his needs. Joseph suffered from mental health problems, including hallucinations and aggressive behaviors. These conditions required that Joseph receive mental health treatment. Joseph's parents were not able to care for him at the time the petition was filed. Nichole was living out of state and Joseph's father resided at a mental hospital.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Joseph's psychological evaluation confirmed that he suffered from depression and anger management problems. His behavioral problems continued throughout the dependency proceedings. His condition showed some signs of improvement after he moved into a group home, engaged in individual therapy and received psychotropic medications.
Nichole received about 12 months of reunification services. During this time, she moved to Louisiana. The court terminated her services at the 12-month review hearing after finding she did not substantially comply with her case plan. The Agency submitted to the court its plan to submit an Interstate Compact for Placement of Children (ICPC) home study to evaluate Nichole's home in Louisiana. The court ordered Joseph remain placed in the group home until the Agency received the ICPC home study results.
At a January 2007 postpermanency planning hearing, the Agency recommended that Joseph be placed with Nichole for a 60-day trial visit. Nichole's ICPC for her Louisiana home had been approved. The social worker, however, expressed concerns that Nichole had not completed reunification services initially offered to her and believed it was necessary for her to continue participating in services in Louisiana. The court ordered Joseph's placement with Nichole.
About three months later, the Agency filed a section 387 petition requesting that Joseph remain in San Diego. Louisiana child welfare authorities notified the Agency it had initiated an investigation concerning sexual abuse allegations that had arisen in Nichole's home. As a result, the Louisiana ICPC office informed the Agency it was disapproving Nichole's home study pending the results of the investigation.
The court held a contested hearing to address the section 387 petition. The court received evidence showing the Louisiana ICPC office concluded its investigation after finding the allegations of sexual abuse were not supported. The court dismissed the Agency's petition, finding Joseph was not at risk in Nichole's care because her home previously had been approved by the Louisiana ICPC process in January 2007.
The Agency discussed with Louisiana social workers the possibility that services could be provided to Nichole and her progress supervised. The social workers in Louisiana responded they would not provide Nichole with services. In June 2007 the Agency requested the court terminate its jurisdiction or rescind its earlier placement order because it would not be able to provide services or oversee Joseph's case in Louisiana. The court did not terminate jurisdiction and reaffirmed its earlier order directing that Joseph be placed in Nichole's care. The court found Louisiana's child welfare services did not articulate any risks facing Joseph if placed in Nichole's care.
The Agency timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the court's decision to maintain its jurisdiction over Joseph even though it would not be able to oversee the case, the Louisiana ICPC did not approve Nichole's home study evaluation and Louisiana social workers declined to provide Nichole with services.
In August 2007 the court held a review hearing concerning Joseph's placement with Nichole in her Louisiana home. It ordered Joseph to remain in Nichole's custody and terminated its jurisdiction because a viable protective issue no longer existed.
On August 16, 2007, the Agency filed a request for judicial notice of the juvenile court's termination of jurisdiction. This court takes judicial notice of the court order for purposes of supporting its conclusion that the appeal has been rendered moot by subsequent events.
DISCUSSION
Nichole filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, arguing the issues raised by the Agency on appeal are moot. She contends the relief the Agency seeks in this appeal has been granted because in August 2007, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction in this case after finding Joseph was no longer in need of the court's protection. The Agency responded, arguing the court erred when it did not terminate jurisdiction after it ordered Joseph placed with Nichole in Louisiana despite Louisiana's disapproval of a home study under the ICPC and its refusal to oversee the case. The Agency claims these issues are not moot because they are of important public policy and are likely to be raised again before this court in future cases.
A
We need not decide the issues raised in this matter because the appeal is moot. 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. (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 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.)
B
Here, whether the court should have terminated its jurisdiction at the June 2007 review hearing is no longer a " 'live' " controversy. (In re Hirenia C. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 504, 518.) The juvenile court has since terminated its jurisdiction in August 2007. Joseph now lives with Nichole in Louisiana and the juvenile court and Agency no longer have authority or responsibility to oversee his case. Thus, no effective relief can be afforded to the Agency and it is not entitled to relief beyond that which it has already obtained.
Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is moot because there remains no material question for our determination. (See Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J.