Opinion
E070305
10-22-2018
In re C.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.B., Defendant and Appellant.
Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Adam E. Ebright, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J272098) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Dismissed. Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Adam E. Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
R.B. (Mother) is the mother of one-year-old C.B. C.B. was initially removed from Mother's care due to the physical abuse of C.B.'s half sibling. Visitation between Mother and C.B. was reported as problematic from the beginning of the case because Mother refused to respect the caregiver's boundaries and would feed C.B. foods that would make him sick. This activity progressed to the point that every time Mother visited C.B. he would experience violent vomiting and diarrhea. At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21 hearing, the juvenile court found that visitation was detrimental to C.B. and temporarily suspended visitation until the matter could be investigated further and a full hearing on the issue could be conducted.
All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
Mother appeals from the visitation order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show Mother's visits with C.B. were detrimental and not in C.B.'s best interest. Counsel for the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) responds that Mother's appeal is premature and not appealable as she is challenging an interim visitation order. In the alternative, CFS's counsel asserts the record contains ample evidence to show that visitation was detrimental to C.B. and that the juvenile court acted within its discretion when it ordered visitation be temporarily suspended. During the pendency of this appeal, Mother's appellate counsel filed a letter noting the issue was now moot because the juvenile court had reinstated Mother's visitation with C.B. Based on Mother's appellate counsel's letter, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
C.B. came to the attention of CFS on July 20, 2017, when a referral was received stating that Mother had an active dependency case involving her four older children in Orange County and that she had recently given birth to C.B. The referral also indicated that Mother had hidden the pregnancy and subsequent birth from CFS in order to avoid involvement with CFS. The referral further noted that C.B.'s half siblings were removed from parental custody due to severe non-accidental injuries to the children and that Mother had a substance abuse history of using methamphetamines, heroin, and morphine. Following several attempts to interview Mother and the father of C.B., C.B., Sr., (Father), CFS removed C.B. and his half siblings from parental custody.
Father and C.B.'s half siblings are not parties to this appeal. --------
On August 1, 2017, CFS filed a petition on behalf of C.B. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (j) (abuse of sibling).
At the detention hearing on August 2, 2017, the juvenile court formally detained C.B. and ordered his detention out of the home. Mother was provided with supervised visitation with C.B. one time per week for two hours. Mother was also ordered to drug test and not to breastfeed or provide breast milk for C.B.
CFS recommended that the majority of the section 300 allegations be found true, and that no reunification services be provided to Mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6). CFS explained that Mother had not been provided reunification services in C.B.'s half siblings' dependency cases in Orange County due to the type of abuse C.B.'s half sibling sustained, and those cases had proceeded to section 366.26 hearings. C.B.'s half sibling's injuries included two fractured tibia; numerous circular brown bruises, approximately the size of fingers, on the child's right side of his head; a purple bruise on the child's upper head; a brown circular bruise on the child's back; subconjuctival hemorrhages in each eye; and an approximately quarter-sized brown bruised area on the left side of the child's scrotum. Mother did not have a reasonable explanation for how C.B.'s half sibling sustained the injuries.
On August 23, 2017, the juvenile court referred the matter to mediation.
The parties participated in mediation on September 15, 2017. At that time, a partial agreement was reached between the parents and CFS, and the parents signed a waiver of rights form. The parents submitted to the allegations as amended, and CFS agreed to dismiss the substance abuse allegations. The parents also agreed to current placement of C.B. with the caregiver, A.M., and to have supervised visits one time per week for two hours. CFS and Father agreed to family reunification services, and Mother requested reunification services.
The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on October 6, 2017. The juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition as amended. C.B. was declared a ward of the court, and Mother was denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6). Mother was provided with supervised visitation a minimum of one time per week for two hours. The matter was continued to April 6, 2018, for a six-month review hearing.
On October 11, 2017, Mother filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of reunification services.
On December 11, 2017, after Mother filed a written request for dismissal of the appeal (case No. E069334), this court dismissed Mother's appeal.
The social worker prepared a status review report for the April 6, 2018 six-month review hearing indicating that visitation with Mother had become problematic concerning scheduling, following directives, and C.B. spitting up/vomiting. The caregiver reported that Mother would walk into the caregiver's home without knocking, even after asking Mother to knock on the door. In addition, the caregiver had informed Mother that C.B. required special formula and foods that did not cause him gas or indigestion. However, Mother failed to follow the caregiver's directives and gave C.B. any type of food at all of the visits. Furthermore, on more than one occasion, during visits Mother was observed shielding C.B. from view, and shortly thereafter, the child experienced sickness and projectile vomiting. The caregiver reported that C.B. spat up and vomited during visits with Mother even though he had not spat up or vomited for several days prior to the visit. In addition, after visits with Mother, C.B. had trouble sleeping and developed severe gas and black diarrhea. C.B.'s pediatrician stated that C.B.'s ailments could be from something Mother was giving C.B. during visits or from stress. After the caregiver consulted with the pediatrician, the caregiver asked that the visits be conducted at the CFS offices instead of her home. During the visit at the CFS office, the same thing occurred—Mother shielded C.B. from view again and he began spitting up and vomiting shortly thereafter. The social worker requested that the visits with Mother be considered detrimental and requested that they be suspended.
The six-month review hearing was held on April 6, 2018. Mother and her trial counsel were both present. Mother's trial counsel indicated that they were tentatively in agreement with the recommendations, but that Mother would like to set a trial on the issue of visitation with C.B. and would like to review the visitation logs beforehand. Mother's trial counsel also noted that the estimated trial time would be 90 minutes and that the witnesses would be Mother, the social worker, and the caregiver. The juvenile court set the section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month review hearing contested for June 14, 2018. In the interim, the juvenile court suspended Mother's visits "as detrimental pending the trial." The court noted that it would not allow Mother visits "between now and the time of the trial based on what the Court has read in the visits summary of today's reports, that it is not in the best interest of [C.B.] to have that visit."
On April 6, 2018, Mother filed an appeal challenging the ordering suspending her visitation pending trial.
Subsequently, on September 6, 2018, during the pendency of this appeal, Mother's appellate counsel filed a letter noting the issue was now moot because the juvenile court had reinstated Mother's visitation with C.B.
III
DISCUSSION
Mother's appellate counsel asserts that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the juvenile court had reinstated Mother's visitation with C.B. Because appellate counsel is correct, we dismiss this appeal. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316 [appellate court held that the mother's appeal was moot because no effective relief could be granted, reasoning that "[b]ecause mother's parental rights cannot be restored even were we to agree with mother that the summary denial [of her petition] was an abuse of discretion, a hearing on mother's petition would be futile"].)
Mother's appellate counsel also argues that we may nevertheless address Mother's claims on appeal. Although a reviewing court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue rendered moot by subsequent events if the question to be decided is of continuing public importance and is likely to recur (Laurie S. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 195, 199), this is not such a case. Visitation orders are reviewed at each step of the dependency proceedings and are dependent on the actions of a parent and/or CFS and the best interest of a child during that time. Therefore, this is not a case of continuing public importance and even if likely to recur, the issue may be different at a later stage in the proceedings. Accordingly, because no effective relief can be granted to Mother by this court and Mother's visits with C.B. have been restored, we dismiss this case as moot.
IV
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MILLER
J.