Opinion
A164129
09-30-2022
In re C.M., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. C.E., Defendant and Appellant. MARIN COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Marin County Super. Ct. Nos. JV27036, JV27037A
MILLER, J.
In this appeal, C.E. (Mother) challenges juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services as to her son C.M. in his dependency proceeding. Marin County Health and Human Services (the Department) has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. We will grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2020, the Department filed petitions alleging that C.M., then age 3, and his half-sister Clare M. (Sister), then age 5, came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. At a contested disposition hearing in February 2021, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for Mother as to both children and reunification services for C.M.'s presumed father (Father). We affirmed the disposition orders in our opinion in In re Clare M. (Dec. 30, 2021, A162576) [nonpub. opn.].
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Before the scheduled six-month review, the Department filed petitions under section 388 to terminate Mother's reunification services for both children. At a contested six-month review hearing in October 2021, the juvenile court granted the petitions. The court ordered the Department to continue providing reunification services to Father and set a 12-month permanency hearing as to C.M. for January 2022. The court set a section 366.26 hearing regarding Sister for February 2022.
Mother initiated this appeal from the orders as to C.M. Mother also filed a notice of intent to file writ petition as to Sister, which was assigned appeal number A163952. That matter was dismissed because Mother failed to file her writ petition within the time allowed. In June 2022, the juvenile court issued orders terminating Mother's parental rights as to Sister, and as to C.M.'s and Sister's half-brother E., who was born in 2021.
In January 2022, in a separate dependency proceeding, the juvenile court issued orders terminating reunification services as to E. and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother did not challenge those orders in a writ petition. Mother's appeal from the orders terminating parental rights as to Sister and E. has been assigned appeal number A165575. In a declaration supporting Mother's opposition to the motion to dismiss, Mother's counsel, who also represents Mother in appeal A165575, discusses the record that has been filed in that appeal. We take judicial notice of this court's file in that appeal.
Mother filed her opening brief in the current appeal, A164129, in July 2022. Meanwhile, in January 2022, the juvenile court held the 12-month review hearing for C.M., and then, in June 2022, dismissed C.M.'s dependency proceeding in an order granting physical and legal custody to Father, with visitation for Mother. The time to challenge the January and June 2022 orders passed without an appeal from Mother.
We grant the Department's opposed request to take judicial notice of orders made by the juvenile court in the underlying proceeding on January 4, 2022 and June 28, 2022.
In September 2022, the Department moved to dismiss this appeal as moot.
DISCUSSION
"When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed." (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315.) Thus, the general rule is that "an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot." (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) "However, dismissal for mootness in such circumstances is not automatic, but 'must be decided on a case-by-case basis.'" (Ibid.) That is because" '[a]n issue is not moot if the purported error infects the outcome of subsequent proceedings.'" (Ibid.)
Mother opposes the Department's motion to dismiss, arguing that the appeal is not moot because the purported error made by the trial court in terminating reunification services here could result in the denial of reunification services in a future dependency proceeding. Mother refers to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), which authorizes a juvenile court to deny reunification services if the court finds that services were previously terminated as to a sibling or half sibling because the parent failed to reunify with that sibling or half sibling. We are not persuaded. The denial of reunification services is authorized under that section only if the juvenile court also finds that the parent "has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling." (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)(A).) And even if the order terminating reunification services as to C.M. has some future effect, the order can have no greater weight than the order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to Sister, issued at the same time, or the later order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to E.
Because Mother failed to challenge the orders as to Sister or E. by means of timely writ petitions, the orders are not subject to subsequent appellate review. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).)
Mother also argues that even if her appeal is moot, we should exercise our discretion to resolve it on the merits because it presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur. We decline to do so. Even if we agreed that Mother's appeal presents such an issue, the issue would not likely evade review, because it arises in the context of orders terminating reunification services, which are subject to review by appeal, as here, or by petition for writ of mandate, as in the case of Sister. (Cf. In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23, fn. 14 [reviewing courts "should not avoid the resolution of important and well litigated controversies arising from situations which are 'capable of repetition yet evading review'" (italics added)].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: Richman, Acting P.J., Stewart, J.