Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. EJ1641C-E, Carol Isackson, Judge. Dismissed.
AARON, J.
William C., father of dependent minors Peter C., Jennifer C. and Melissa C. (collectively, the minors), appeals after the juvenile court continued a family maintenance review hearing and set the matter for a contested hearing at William's request. William seeks to challenge the court's tentative evidentiary ruling and interim visitation order, both of which the court later addressed at the contested hearing. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The lengthy factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in this court's prior opinions and need not be restated here. (In re Peter C. (Mar. 9, 2009, D053567) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Peter C. (Sept. 11, 2009, D054365) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Peter C. (Oct. 9, 2009, D054906) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Peter C. (Dec. 3, 2009, D055032) [nonpub. opn.].) Instead, we focus on events that are relevant to the June 22, 2009, hearing at issue in this appeal.
In a report prepared for the June 22 family maintenance review hearing, the social worker for the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) recommended that the court continue its jurisdiction, continue placement of the minors with their mother Tammy, terminate William's services, and continue supervised visits for William.
William has been in a sober living facility since December 2008. He denied having an alcohol problem or history of violent behavior, and refused to participate in services. Melissa was the only child who was willing to attend recent visits with William. William threatened to go to Tammy's house if the minors did not show up for a scheduled visit. Although Tammy supports the minors having a relationship with William, she is concerned about his behavior and his anger toward her.
On June 17, 2009, William filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for modification seeking unsupervised visits with the minors, or alternatively, visits with the minors supervised by the director of the sober living facility where William lives. William alleged that Tammy and the social worker had been preventing visits from taking place, and that the minors need and want to see him.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The matter came before the court for a family maintenance review hearing on June 22, at which William appeared in propria persona. The court acknowledged having received William's section 388 modification petition. The court explained the scope of the family maintenance review hearing and the nature of Agency's recommendations, and informed William that he had a right to contest those recommendations. The court stated that William could not challenge placement of the minors with Tammy, noting that its ruling was "tentative." The court granted William's request for a contested hearing.
The court also found that William's section 388 modification petition was incomplete in that he had left certain sections blank. The court denied the petition without prejudice and took the matter off calendar.
As to visitation, William stated at the hearing that he was having some visits with Melissa and telephone calls with Jennifer and Peter. He also had a supervised visit with all three minors on June 19 at Crisis House. William's interaction with the staff at Crisis House caused them to refuse to supervise future visits. The court confirmed its orders for supervised visitation between William and the minors, and directed Agency to follow up with a plan for further supervised visits at a time that was convenient for everyone involved.
DISCUSSION
William purports to challenge the court's visitation orders and its ruling denying his request to present evidence regarding the minors' placement with Tammy. County Counsel responds that William's appeal should be dismissed because the challenged orders and the ruling are nonappealable, and have been rendered moot by the subsequent hearing. In a letter to the court, William concedes that the issues he raised in his opening brief are now moot and that he should raise them in the appeal he filed on September 25, 2009.
We grant Agency's request for judicial notice of William's notice of appeal, filed on September 25, 2009, challenging: (1) the findings and orders made at the contested family maintenance review hearing; and (2) the denial of his section 388 modification petition.
An appellate court will not review questions that 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. (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054.) 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. (Id. at pp. 1054-1055; In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.)
Here, the juvenile court made no final rulings at the family maintenance review hearing on June 22 that affected William's rights. Instead, the court granted William's request for a contested hearing at which he was able to participate and to present evidence on the issues he seeks to raise in this appeal, including visitation. On September 9, 2009, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on William's section 388 modification petition, challenging the placement of the minors with Tammy. William has now appealed those findings and orders, and can properly address them in the context of his most recent appeal. The subsequent proceedings in juvenile court render this appeal moot. (See In re Karen G. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390.)
We grant Agency's request for judicial notice of subsequent juvenile court minute orders.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR McCONNELL, P. J., O'ROURKE, J.