Opinion
F076358
01-30-2018
J.T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Rodney Richard Rusca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 13CEJ300307-1)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Gary Green, Commissioner. Rodney Richard Rusca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
At a postpermanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3) in September 2017, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing for January 22, 2018, to consider a permanent plan of legal guardianship for then 15-year-old Amber H., the daughter of petitioner J.T. (mother). Mother initiated extraordinary writ proceedings from the setting order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452.) Meanwhile, the court vacated the section 366.26 hearing on a motion by the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) as the foster parents decided against legal guardianship. We conclude the original writ proceedings are moot and dismiss mother's petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
As shown on her petition, mother is now known as "J.H."; however, the record identifies her as "J.T."
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Twelve-year-old Amber was removed from the custody of her father, Carl, in May 2015 after she physically assaulted her stepmother. Mother, who was the noncustodial parent, asked the juvenile court to place Amber with her but the court declined. The department placed Amber in a foster care home where she remained throughout the proceedings.
The juvenile court provided mother reunification services to the 12-month review hearing and Carl to the 18-month review hearing before setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to implement a permanent plan. At the section 366.26 hearing in March 2017, the juvenile court found termination of parental rights would be detrimental to Amber and ordered her to remain in her foster home with the specific goal of legal guardianship.
For a more detailed summary of these proceedings, see the following unpublished opinions: J.T. v. Superior Court (Feb. 24, 2017, F074767), In re Amber H. (July 25, 2017, F074623) and In re Amber H. (July 25, 2017, F074189).
On September 25, 2017, at the postpermanency plan review hearing, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing for January 22, 2018, to consider a permanent plan of guardianship for Amber.
While mother's writ petition was pending, real party in interest requested that this court take judicial notice of the juvenile court's order vacating the January 22, 2018, section 366.26 hearing and related documentation. The court's order was issued at a hearing conducted on November 6, 2017, in response to a modification petition (§ 388) filed by the department advising the court that Amber's foster parents were willing to continue providing Amber long-term foster care but were no longer willing to pursue the legal guardianship. The next hearing in this case is a postpermanency plan review hearing scheduled for March 19, 2018.
Real party in interest's "Request for Judicial Notice," filed on November 15, 2017, is a request that this court take judicial notice of four exhibits: (1) "Request to Change Court Order" (JV-180) filed by the department on October 17, 2017 (Exhibit A); (2) "Court Order on Form JV-180" (JV-183) filed on October 18, 2017 [setting the hearing] (Exhibit B); (3) Minute order for the November 6, 2017, hearing (Exhibit C); and (4) "Order After Hearing on Form JV-180," filed on November 6, 2017 (Exhibit D). --------
DISCUSSION
We have power to take additional evidence and, though generally reluctant to do so, should when events occurring after the judgment render the appeal moot. (Long v. Hultberg (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 606, 608.) The juvenile court's order vacating the section 366.26 hearing rendered these writ proceedings moot. Consequently, we grant real party in interest's request to take judicial notice and dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
Real party in interest's "Request to Take Judicial Notice," filed on November 15, 2017, is granted. The extraordinary writ petition is dismissed. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.