Opinion
E051415
01-11-2012
In re A.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.N. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants. Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Julie Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIJ114099)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gary Vincent, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Dismissed.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Julie Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A.N. and D.N., former caregivers of A.H., the minor, had de facto parent status and visitation with the minor until the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a modification petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388) to terminate visits as well as their de facto parent status. The juvenile court granted the requests, finding that visits were detrimental following the minor's placement with a prospective adoptive parent. The former caregivers appeal from the termination of their de facto parent status and the suspension of their visitation. On appeal, the former caregivers argue that the juvenile court's findings that visits were detrimental are not supported by the record. In response, DPSS argues that appeal should be dismissed on the ground of mootness, because the minor has been adopted and the adoption is final. We dismiss the appeal.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, except where specifically indicated.
The minor's mother previously appealed from the judgment terminating her parental rights (In re A.H. (Aug. 12, 2010, E050144) [nonpub. opn.]), and we affirmed that judgment on August 12, 2010.
BACKGROUND
The facts underlying the intervention by DPSS are not relevant to this appeal. Suffice it to say that A.H. was removed from her mother's custody on March 24, 2007, due to neglect and domestic violence issues. In 2007, the minor was placed in the home of A.N. and her husband, D.N., the former caregivers, pursuant to an "Agency-Foster Parents Placement Agreement." A.N. and D.N. had been foster parents for many years. The parents of the minor failed to make significant progress in their reunification plans, so A.N. and D.N. indicated their desire to adopt.
In September 2008, A.N. and D.N. moved from Riverside County to San Bernardino County, but failed to renew the foster care license in San Bernardino County for over seven months. The licensing issue related to recent criminal activity by A.N.'s adult son, who lived in the home. Because the caregivers were not licensed, an adoption home study could not be completed on the home.
On April 14, 2009, the minor was removed from the caregivers' home and was placed in a prospective adoptive home. A.N. was upset by the removal of the minor from her home, and claimed she did not need a foster care license because she was a nonrelated extended family member. A nonrelative extended family placement agreement had been executed on July 17, 2008, upon the retransfer of the case from Orange County to Riverside County. However, the minor's placement with A.N. and D.N. had always been described as a foster home placement.
In early September 2008, A.N. and D.N. moved from Riverside County to San Bernardino County, and A.N. applied for a foster care license in that county. However, the home study could not be completed because A.N.'s adult son was now living in the home, and there was an active warrant for him. While the minor remained in A.N.'s home, payments for the foster care came from Riverside County funds. A.N.'s application to adopt the minor was placed on hold due to the licensing issue, and another placement was identified. On April 14, 2009, the minor was moved and placed with a prospective adoptive parent. A.N.'s home was finally licensed as a foster home by San Bernardino County on August 11, 2009.
On August 28, 2009, the former caretakers filed a petition to modify the prior order placing the minor with the adoptive mother and for an order returning the minor to their care. A.N. also filed a request for de facto parent status. A.N. subsequently filed a separate request for designation as the prospective adoptive parent.
On January 22, 2010, the court heard the section 388 petition of the former caretakers along with the hearing on the selection and implementation of the permanent plan. At that hearing, parental rights were terminated and the minor was freed for adoption by the adoptive mother. Regarding the section 388 modification petition, counsel for the former caretakers announced that an agreement had been reached with the prospective adoptive mother. Pursuant to the agreement, A.N. would withdraw her section 388 petition and her request for prospective adoptive parent status, in return for an agreement for postadoption visitation with the minor.
The first visit occurred in February, 2010, and did not go well. The minor returned from the visit in a distraught condition and had an incident of enuresis. On March 8, 2010, a therapist evaluated the minor and determined that she was confused, similar to children of divorced parents who are in the middle of conflict. The therapist recommended suspension or termination of visits that do not clearly and openly support and encourage her relationship with the adoptive mother.
On March 23, 2010, DPSS filed a request to change court order(JV-180), pursuant to section 388, seeking to terminate visits between the minor and the former caretakers, and to terminate their de facto parent status. The application was made on the grounds that A.N. had attempted to interfere with and undermine the minor's placement with the adoptive family by speaking negatively about the minor to the adoptive mother and making hostile comments. On May 24, 2010, after an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court terminated all visits between the minor and the former caretakers, as well as their de facto parent status. On July 22, 2010, D.N. and A.N. appealed the orders terminating their visits and their de facto parent status.
DISCUSSION
The former caregivers argue that their de facto parent status should not have been terminated and their visitation with the minor should not have been suspended. They argue that DPSS did not make an adequate showing of changed circumstances to warrant the modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Respondents argue that the orders were properly made pursuant to section 388, and that the issues are moot because the minor was subsequently adopted, and the adoption is final. We agree that the issues are moot and that the appeal must be dismissed.
We take judicial notice of the minute orders of December 10, 2010, which were exhibits attached to DPSS's motion to dismiss the appeal, and which reflect that the petition for adoption was granted and the dependency was terminated.
--------
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. (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) Here, parental rights were terminated in January, 2010, and the judgment is now final on appeal. (In re A.H., supra, E050144.) As of December 10, 2010, the minor has been adopted and the juvenile court has terminated its jurisdiction. As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot, although dismissal for mootness is not automatic. (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.)
Here, the minor has been adopted and the adoption is final. "After adoption, the adopted child and the adoptive parents shall sustain towards each other the legal relationship of parent and child and have all the rights and are subject to all the duties of that relationship." (Fam. Code, § 8616; In re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 135.) Of course, we recognize that there are instances where a court may order visitation for a nonparent notwithstanding the dismissal of the underlying dependency proceedings, where the court finds the child would be significantly harmed by completely terminating the child's relationship with the de facto parent. (See In re Hirenia C. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 504, 519.) However, in this case, the juvenile court was presented with evidence that visitation between the minor and the former caregivers was detrimental to the child, and that the former caregivers were undermining the adoptive placement.
Because there are no pending proceedings in the juvenile court, and because the adoption of the child is final, no effective relief can be afforded the former caretakers.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Ramirez
P.J.
We concur:
King
J.
Codrington
J.