Opinion
E066586
05-03-2017
In re N.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N.P., Defendant and Appellant.
Renee Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Meagan J. Beale, and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIJ1500300) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Roger A. Luebs, Judge. Dismissed. Renee Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Meagan J. Beale, and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The Riverside County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that defendant and appellant N.P. (minor) was found in a public place under the influence of intoxicating liquors and drugs. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f).) Minor admitted the allegation, and a juvenile court placed her on probation for six months, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a). Minor subsequently violated her probation. The court adjudged her a ward of the court, and placed her in the custody of her parents. After several probation violations and unsuccessful in-state placements, the court ordered minor placed in an out-of-state facility.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
On appeal, minor argues that the order placing her out of state must be reversed because the court failed to make findings required under section 727.1.
As explained post, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2015, minor, who was 15 years old, admitted the allegation that she violated Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f), when she was in a public place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs, in such a condition as to be unable to exercise care for her own safety or the safety of others. The court granted her probation for six months, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a), under specified terms. Accordingly, the court did not adjudge her a ward of the court at that time.
On October 29, 2015, the probation department filed a petition to revoke minor's probation, alleging that she tested positive for marijuana four times. She was directed to discontinue use of any illegal substances, but she subsequently admitted consuming alcohol. She also allegedly violated the term that she attend school, as she was truant for 24 class periods between July and October 2015.
The court held a hearing on November 3, 2015, and both the prosecution and defense submitted on the petition. The court revoked minor's probation, adjudged her a ward of the court, and placed her on formal probation in the custody of her parents (father and stepmother) under specified conditions.
On November 30, 2015, the probation department filed a supplemental petition pursuant to section 777. The petition alleged numerous probation violations. The probation department recommended that she be screened by the interagency screening committee (ISC) for additional services and that she remain in custody until the date of disposition.
At a hearing on December 1, 2015, minor admitted the violation allegations, and the court referred the matter to the probation department for disposition.
The probation department filed a disposition memorandum and reported that minor's case was screened by the ISC. The probation department recommended that minor be ordered to participate in wraparound services.
The court held a hearing on December 18, 2015, and ordered that minor be screened for wraparound services. The court detained minor in juvenile hall and continued the matter to January 5, 2016.
At the dispositional hearing on January 5, 2016, both parties submitted on the recommendation. The court continued minor as a ward, and released her to the custody of her father, under specified conditions, including that she participate in wraparound services.
On January 27, 2016, the probation department filed another supplemental petition pursuant to section 777, alleging that minor violated the conditions of her wardship by leaving home without permission on January 23, 2016, and failing to return. A warrant was issued, and she was apprehended on January 26, 2016. The probation department recommended a continuation of wraparound services "given her limited time in the program." Probation also recommended that minor be ordered to complete the forward thinking program, as a consequence for her actions. At a hearing on January 28, 2016, minor admitted the allegation, and the court followed the recommendations of the probation department.
The probation department filed a review memorandum on March 29, 2016, and reported that minor continued to violate the conditions of her wardship. Minor made minimal progress toward improving her behavior at home, school, and in the community and had shown complete disregard toward the probation department and the orders of the court.
At a hearing on April 4, 2016, the court found that continuance in the parents' home was contrary to minor's welfare and detained her in juvenile hall.
On May 2, 2016, the court held a hearing, and minor admitted the probation violation allegations. The court continued her as a ward and ordered her removed from her parents' custody and placed in a suitable home or facility. She was placed at Optimist Youth Home (Optimist) on May 11, 2016.
On May 25, 2016, the probation department filed another supplemental petition pursuant to section 777, alleging that minor violated a condition of her wardship when she left Optimist without permission and failed to return. She was taken into custody the following day and booked into juvenile hall.
On May 31, 2016, the court held a hearing, and minor admitted the allegations. The court detained her in juvenile hall and subsequently moved her to the David and Margaret Group Home on June 8, 2016.
During minor's short stay at the David and Margaret Group Home, she was defiant, disrespectful to the staff, and failed to follow the house rules. The probation department filed a detention report and recommended that minor be referred for a dispositional memorandum.
The court held a hearing on June 24, 2016, and minor admitted the allegations. The court referred the matter to the probation department for a disposition memorandum, and it directed probation to consider screening her for an out-of-state placement, as well as the Tarzana Treatment Center.
The probation department filed a disposition memorandum on July 6, 2016, recommending out-of-state placement. The report stated that minor had been placed in two in-state facilities; she absconded from Optimist and tested positive for methamphetamine at the David and Margaret Group Home. Based on minor's substance abuse, lack of parental control and structure in the home, history of running away, and poor academic performance, the ISC recommended out-of-state placement.
The court conducted a contested disposition hearing on July 25, 2016. After considering the evidence and closing arguments, the court concluded that minor needed an out-of-state placement where intensive services would be available 24 hours a day, in a structured environment, for six months to a year. Thus, the court ordered minor placed out of home, in an out-of-state placement, with a particular preference for Mingus Mountain, for a period of six months.
On July 29, 2016, the court held a hearing to make out-of-state placement findings. The probation department recommended the court make specified findings concerning out-of-state facilities, including the following: "In-state facilities or programs have been determined to be unavailable or inadequate to meet the needs of the minor"; "Equivalent facilities for the child are not available in the sending agency's jurisdiction"; and "Institutional care in the other jurisdiction is in the best interest of the child and will not produce undue hardship." The court adopted the recommended findings and signed the order placing minor out of state.
DISCUSSION
It is well settled that this court's duty is to issue opinions upon matters that could provide relief to the parties. Accordingly, when an event occurs that renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of the appellant, to grant any effectual relief, then the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal as moot. (In re Soderstnen (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1217.)
Minor has now been removed from the out-of-state placement at issue in this appeal and has returned to her home, thereby rendering her appeal moot. Thus, she has filed a request to dismiss the appeal. We agree that the appeal is moot and order it dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J. We concur: CODRINGTON
J. SLOUGH
J.