Opinion
H043278 H043356
04-11-2017
In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.G., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 114-JD22971)
R.G. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's findings and orders following contested hearings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387. Mother argues the juvenile court erred when it found the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (Department) made reasonable efforts to prevent J.G. (child, born 1999) from being removed, and it abused its discretion when it limited her educational rights. While these appeals were pending, the juvenile court in San Francisco County returned child to mother's care and dismissed the dependency proceeding. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the Department that the appeals are now moot and dismissal is proper under these circumstances.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
1. Background
These are mother's third and fourth appeals in this dependency case. The background of child's dependency can be found in this court's unpublished opinions in mother's prior appeals (In re J.G. (Apr. 11, 2016, H041974) [nonpub. opn.]; In re J.G. (Feb. 9, 2017, H042955) [nonpub. opn.]). Thus, we dispense with a recitation of the history of this case and focus on the facts relevant to the issues mother has raised on appeal.
On December 5, 2016, we granted the Department's request for judicial notice of the records in case Nos. H041974 and H042955.
2. Child's Return to Mother's Care
On July 10, 2015, child was returned to mother's care against the Department's recommendation under a program of family maintenance following a hearing held under section 366.21, subdivision (e)(1). As part of her case plan, mother was ordered to participate in and successfully complete a parenting teenagers parenting class and a program of counseling or psychotherapy. Mother had completed eight sessions of individual therapy by June 29, 2015.
Mother appealed this disposition in In re J.G. (Feb. 9, 2017, H042955 [nonpub. opn.]). We affirmed the juvenile court's order in our unpublished decision.
On October 2, 2015, the Department filed a section 388 petition requesting the family maintenance review hearing be set for October 2015 so the Department could request the case be transferred to San Francisco County, where the family had recently moved. The juvenile court granted the section 388 petition.
3. The Section 387 Petition
On October 23, 2015, the Department filed a section 387 petition recommending child be removed from mother's care. The petition alleged child was at a significant risk of harm due to ongoing emotional abuse. The Department's initial hearing report summarized that mother held unsubstantiated beliefs that child had significant mental health problems. The family had moved to San Francisco in August 2015 so child could attend school. Child had reached out to her therapist, social worker, physician, and school counselor. She had told them she was reaching her breaking point and no longer wanted to live with mother.
On October 27, 2015, the juvenile court ordered child detained from mother's care. The court also ordered a prima facie detention hearing, which was held the following day. During the prima facie detention hearing, the juvenile court admitted into evidence the initial hearing report prepared by the Department, which recommended child's removal. The social worker found mother had been "difficult to engage" throughout the dependency process and had not benefitted from her involvement in other services. The social worker had worked with child's school wellness counselor, and, through the counselor, mother was given information for family counseling referrals. She also explained that child's physician provided mother with mental health information.
After the prima facie hearing, the court found child's detention to be necessary. Mother was granted weekly supervised visits, and the social worker was given the discretion to increase the frequency and duration of visits.
On November 10, 2015, the Department filed a second amended section 387 petition recommending child be removed from mother's care and placed in a foster home. The petition again alleged child was at a significant risk of harm in mother's care due to emotional abuse.
4. The Contested Jurisdiction Hearing on the Section 387 Petition
The juvenile court considered several reports prepared by the Department during the contested jurisdiction hearing on the Department's section 387 petition. According to the October 16, 2015 status review report, which recommended continuing family maintenance services and transferring the case to San Francisco County, child had recently expressed that her relationship with mother was deteriorating. The social worker had been unable to meet with mother since August 2015, and mother was often not responsive to the Department's e-mails. Mother had been provided with referrals for family counseling and had completed 12 sessions of parenting classes. Otherwise, child was doing well in school. Mother was heavily involved in her academics and child's teachers said they often received numerous e-mails from her every week.
According to the November 20, 2015 jurisdiction/disposition report, which recommended the court sustain the second amended section 387 petition and grant mother reunification services, child was living in a foster home. Mother had refused to sign off on child's individualized education program (IEP). Mother said she did not want child to drop a Spanish class. Mother had also requested child receive special education evaluation and further testing, which the school district had declined. Mother confirmed to the social worker that she was not willing to sign child's IEP, because she did not want child to drop a class to take a study skills support class. Mother's communications with the school were contentious and frequent, and some teachers reported it was uncomfortable to interact with mother. Child was concerned with mother's excessive communications with her teachers. Thus, the social worker opined it was necessary for the court to limit mother's educational rights, because mother's excessive contacts with child's teachers were negatively impacting child's emotional well-being.
On November 20, 2015, the Department prepared an addendum report. The addendum report consisted of an attached parent statement prepared by mother. Mother's parent statement raised concerns over child's removal and representations made about mother in the Department's prior reports.
On November 20, 2015, the Department requested the court temporarily remove mother as child's educational rights holder. The court granted the request pending the contested hearing. Child's educational rights were temporarily vested with her foster parent.
On January 5, 2016, the juvenile court held the contested section 387 hearing. The court admitted into evidence the October 16, 2015 status review report, the November 20, 2015 jurisdiction/disposition report, and the November 20, 2015 addendum report. The court also heard testimony from the supervising social worker, mother, and child.
The social worker assigned to the case testified. She asserted mother had been given a phone number to call in order to facilitate services in San Francisco County. Mother was involved in child's therapy, and she received negative feedback about the sessions. Mother told the social worker she believed things were going well. Mother restricted child's activities in a way that made the social worker fear for child's emotional well-being. The social worker was concerned that mother and child's disagreements would escalate to physical violence. The social worker had intended to transfer the case to San Francisco County, but acknowledged there were constraints on her ability to transfer the case so close to the next statutory review date set for October 2015.
Mother testified on her own behalf. She explained child had problems with drugs, and she had to discipline child. Mother denied excessive involvement in child's education. After the family moved to San Francisco, mother had attempted to find services for herself. She did not believe the Department provided her with sufficient guidance or assistance to find services. She called the mental health access number she was provided, but she was told she could not get a referral because child's case had not been transferred to San Francisco County. Mother eventually found a therapist.
Child also testified at the hearing. She asserted she had been feeling emotionally unstable prior to her removal. Shortly after the family moved to San Francisco, she began having confrontations with mother. Child acknowledged that she and mother had been physically aggressive toward each other in the past. Child was concerned about mother's contacts with her teachers at school. She felt embarrassed by mother's behavior, and she did not want mother to make educational decisions for her.
At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court sustained the contested section 387 petition. The court found child to be a credible witness. It also believed mother had made little progress, and mother's testimony demonstrated a lack of self-awareness or acknowledgment in her role in the dependency case. Mother appealed the court's jurisdiction finding in case No. H043278.
5. The Disposition Hearing on the Section 387 Petition
The Department submitted its February 8, 2016 addendum report before the disposition hearing on the section 387 petition. The report recommended mother receive family reunification services. Child was in a foster home, and she was doing well academically. An IEP had been approved to allow child to drop a Spanish class and add a study skills period. Mother was still contacting school personnel, and her access to "School Loop," an online program used by teachers to post assignments and grades, was restricted after she persisted in contacting child's teachers. Mother had attended a parenting class. Both mother and child were also attending family counseling sessions. Mother had been referred to several mental health providers in San Francisco County, but many declined to work with her due to the severity of her disorder. The Department had identified a therapist specializing in mother's personality disorder that cost $130 per session and was willing to pay $90 per session. Mother said she was unable to afford the remaining $40 copay. Mother did not believe individual counseling was necessary. She also had not told the social worker what type of insurance she had, so the social worker was unable to look into providers that would accept her insurance, if she had any.
Child's IEP and mother's parent statement were attached to the addendum report. Mother's parent statement explained that the family failed to receive services after they moved to San Francisco in August 2015. Mother attached a letter from her previous psychologist dated August 25, 2015, which stated that mother had completed eight therapy sessions, and the therapist believed mother would not benefit from additional therapy.
On February 8, 2016, the juvenile court held the disposition hearing on the section 387 petition. Mother testified. She acknowledged the Department was recommending she receive family reunification services, but she believed child should be returned to her care under a plan of family maintenance. Mother and child had attended family therapy sessions, which mother found helpful. She acknowledged she had been advised to seek individual counseling, but she had not been able to find a suitable therapist. Mother did not believe she needed individual counseling. She had been provided with resources and referrals to community agencies to find suitable parenting classes. Mother had attended a parenting class held in Daly City. Mother did not believe the contents of the parenting class were appropriate or helpful. Mother did not believe the prior order limiting her educational rights prohibited her from contacting child's school. She thought the case should be transferred to San Francisco County.
The social worker assigned to the case testified and explained she had found mother a therapist that specialized in her personality disorder, but the therapist only accepted Medi-Cal insurance, which mother did not have. The Department could cover $90 of the therapist's $130 fee, but mother said she could not afford to pay the remaining cost. The social worker did not believe it was in child's best interest to transfer the case to San Francisco County, because she was already familiar with the case. The social worker thought she was able to provide support and services to mother and child even though they lived in San Francisco.
After considering the reports that were submitted into the evidence, the testimony at the hearing, and the arguments provided by counsel, the trial court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported child's removal. The court, however, agreed with mother that the parenting class she was attending was not appropriate. Thus, the court struck the parenting class from the case plan. The court also limited mother's educational rights, finding it would benefit child to "be able to breathe at school and feel like she has a safe place."
The court declined to transfer the case to San Francisco County. Subsequently, the court ordered family reunification services for mother. Mother filed a notice of appeal from the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in case No. H043356. While mother's appeals were pending with this court, the juvenile court in San Francisco County entered an order dismissing dependency jurisdiction and reunifying child with mother.
On our own motion, we ordered case Nos. H043278 and H043356 considered together for the purposes of briefing, oral argument, and disposition.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, mother argues the Department failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts were made to prevent child's removal, failed to provide reasonable services to mother, and failed to timely transfer the case to San Francisco County. She further argues the juvenile court erred when it limited her educational rights. While these appeals were pending, the juvenile court in San Francisco County reunified mother with child and dismissed the dependency. We requested and received supplemental briefing on whether the juvenile court's dismissal of the dependency renders these two appeals moot. We agree with the Department that mother's appeals should be dismissed.
As a general rule, it is a court's duty to decide " ' " 'actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.' " ' " (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58.) Thus, "[a]n appellate court will dismiss an appeal when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief." (Id. at pp. 58-59.) As a general rule, termination of 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) because, even if the appellate court were to find reversible error, it could afford no direct relief. (In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330.)
We find that we cannot grant mother effective relief. Child has been returned to mother's care. The dependency has been dismissed. There is no relief we can grant to mother even if we were to find merit to her arguments on appeal.
Mother argues there are four reasons why the appeals are not moot. First, she argues that the San Francisco County juvenile court's order dismissing the dependency is not yet final, and she still has the option to file a notice of appeal. Mother also argues she has two appeals from this same dependency case currently pending with Division One of the First District Court of Appeal. She claims that because these two pending appeals are not final, their resolution may have an effect on the two appeals pending before us here.
In mother's supplemental letter brief, she acknowledges that two separate motions to dismiss were filed in these two pending appeals. --------
Neither of these two arguments have merit. Mother has not expressed any intent to appeal from the order dismissing the dependency and reunifying her with child. And it is speculative as to whether any appeal from this order would be successful, and what issues mother would raise on appeal. Furthermore, mother does not explain how or in what manner her appeals pending with the First District, which concern subsequent juvenile court orders, would impact this court's ability to grant relief in these appeals. In sum, mother's arguments alleviate none of the concerns regarding this court's present ability to afford her with effective relief due to the dismissal of the dependency.
Next, mother argues this court should exercise its discretion to resolve issues even when effective relief cannot be granted, because there remain material questions for this court to determine. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541 [a court may exercise discretion to resolve an issue when there remain "material questions for the court's determination"].) She argues this court should consider her arguments pertaining to the Department's erroneous failure to timely transfer the case to San Francisco County and failure to provide reasonable services to the family. These issues, however, do not present material questions for this court to review. (Hartke v. Abbott (1930) 106 Cal.App. 388, 394 [material questions for court to review include issues if " 'left unreversed, will preclude the party against whom it is rendered as to a fact vital to his rights, such as to the validity of a contract upon which his rights are based . . . .' "].) Mother does not explain how a determination that the Department failed to provide reasonable services or failed to timely transfer the case to San Francisco County would affect her future rights.
Lastly, mother argues this court should consider the merits of her appeals because failing to do so would create the undesirable result of insulating erroneous rulings from appellate review. Although we are sympathetic to mother's argument, it still remains that this court cannot grant mother effective relief.
Thus, we find these appeals are moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeals are dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Rushing, P.J. /s/_________
Grover, J.