Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DP023160, Deborah C. Servino, Judge.
Hassan Gorguinpour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
OPINION
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
B.H. appeals after the juvenile court sustained two juvenile dependency petitions filed by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) as to now 11 month old A.H. The court found that B.H. was A.H.’s presumed father. In his appellate briefs, B.H. argues the juvenile court’s jurisdictional orders were unsupported by substantial evidence.
In August 2013, SSA filed a request for judicial notice of juvenile court records showing that since the commencement of this appeal, court ordered testing confirmed that B.H. is not A.H.’s biological father and the court has granted B.H.’s requests, inter alia, that all allegations pertaining to B.H. be stricken from the sustained petitions and that he be excluded from further participation in this dependency matter. SSA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of mootness. B.H. has not filed any opposition to SSA’s request for judicial notice or motion to dismiss.
For the reasons we will explain, subsequent events have rendered B.H.’s appeal moot; accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Background
In October 2012, SSA filed a juvenile dependency petition which, as amended in December 2012 (the first petition), alleged A.H. came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling). The first petition contained allegations regarding A.H.’s mother’s extensive substance abuse problems and criminal record. The only allegation pertaining to B.H. was he had arrests for possessing a controlled substance and controlled substance paraphernalia, but both charges against him were dismissed. At an initial petition hearing, the juvenile court found B.H. to be A.H.’s presumed father and ordered A.H. to remain in B.H.’s care.
On December 13, 2012, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the first petition. On December 17, SSA filed a second juvenile dependency petition (the second petition), which alleged B.H. had failed to comply with court ordered drug testing. The second petition stated A.H. had been detained by SSA. The juvenile court sustained the second petition and vested custody of A.H. with SSA. B.H. appealed from the juvenile court’s orders finding juvenile court dependency jurisdiction over B.H. and denying him family maintenance services. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s findings that he had placed A.H. at risk of harm and had failed to adequately supervise or parent A.H. In the opening brief, B.H. states: “Father has an active interest in correcting these findings of parental fault. Thus, he asks this court to reverse the jurisdiction orders against him, leaving him as a non offending parent.”
In June 2013, SSA requested that this court take judicial notice of (1) a certified copy of the juvenile court’s May 22, 2013 minute order in which the court ordered paternity testing for B.H. as to A.H., and (2) a certified copy of the reporter’s transcript for the May 22, 2013 hearing. The reporter’s transcript includes B.H.’s testimony that his mother had submitted biological samples from B.H. and A.H. for paternity testing, and that the test results showed B.H. was not A.H.’s biological father. B.H. further testified he would rather not have a relationship with A.H. if she were not his biological child, and requested that the juvenile court order a paternity test to confirm those results.
On August 1, 2013, SSA filed a second request for judicial notice and a motion to dismiss the appeal. SSA requested that this court take judicial notice of two juvenile court orders, filed on July 16, 2013 and July 29, 2013, respectively, which show the court ordered DNA testing established B.H. is not A.H.’s biological father. The orders further show that, pursuant to B.H.’s request, the juvenile court has set aside B.H.’s voluntary declaration of paternity, vacated the order providing B.H. reunification services as to A.H., struck the allegations in the first petition and the second petition, which pertain to B.H., and excluded B.H., for all purposes, from this juvenile dependency case. B.H. has not filed an opposition to the second request for judicial notice or the motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to rule 8.256(e)(1) of the California Rules of Court, we vacated submission of this matter and provided B.H. the opportunity to file a supplemental letter brief addressing why this court should not grant both SSA’s second request for judicial notice and motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.
B.H.’s counsel submitted a supplemental letter brief stating that B.H. “has no opposition to the motion for judicial notice.” The letter brief further states, however, that “Counsel for [B.H.] is unable to state a position on the motion to dismiss the appeal” because of, inter alia, “counsel’s inability to confirm with [B.H.] his position on the motion to dismiss.”
Discussion
“‘“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. [Citations.]”’ (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498...; see In re Christina A. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1158... [if subsequent acts or events have rendered questions raised in the appeal moot, then the action no longer presents a justiciable controversy].) [¶] Appellate courts have dismissed dependency and civil appeals that have become moot. (See In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404... [‘“[A]n action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.”’]; Ebensteiner Co., Inc. v. Chadmar Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178 1179... [appellate court will not render opinions on moot questions but will dismiss the appeal]; In re Ruby T. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1204... [‘“it is the duty of the court to dismiss the appeal”’ that has become moot].)” (In re A.Z. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1180.)
Postjudgment evidence may be considered to determine whether it renders an issue moot on appeal. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676.) Evidence Code sections 459, subdivision (a), and 452, subdivision (d)(1), provide that this court may take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s orders. We therefore grant SSA’s unopposed second request for judicial notice. We deny SSA’s first request for judicial notice because it is not necessary for the resolution of this appeal
The juvenile court’s orders establish the court has set aside B.H.’s voluntary declaration of paternity, vacated the order providing B.H. reunification services as to A.H., struck the allegations in the first petition and the second petition, which pertain to B.H., and excluded B.H., for all purposes, from this juvenile dependency case. B.H.’s appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the petitions is therefore moot. B.H. does not assert otherwise. We therefore grant SSA’s motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, P. J., THOMPSON, J.