Conservatorship of Thomas F.
Filed 2/7/07 Conservatorship of Thomas F. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Conservatorship of the Person of THOMAS F. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY , Petitioner and Respondent, v. THOMAS F., Objector and Appellant. | D047666 (Super. Ct. No. MH97625) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roger W. Krauel, Judge. Dismissed.
Thomas F. appeals from a judgment entered October 25, 2005, which reestablished his conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS). He contends that his LPS conservatorship must be reversed because it was based on the stipulation of counsel authorized by San Diego Superior Court Local Rule (Local Rule) 8.2.33 which he asserts is contrary to state law governing stipulated judgments as it did not require counsel to obtain his authorization or consent.
Because the local rule at issue was revised effective July 1, 2006, and Thomas's LPS conservatorship was due to terminate on October 25, 2006, we requested the parties submit simultaneous letter briefs commenting upon the status of Thomas's conservatorship and whether this appeal is now moot. In their letter briefs, the parties are in agreement that Thomas's LPS conservatorship was reestablished on December 14, 2006, after a contested trial at which Thomas was present and that this appeal is technically moot. Nonetheless, " Thomas contends this court should exercise its discretion and review the issues presented in the appeal because the issues concern the fundamental rights of conservatees, and they are capable of repetition yet evading review. (Conservatorship of Forsythe (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1409.)"
In this particular case, however, we decline to do so. Because Thomas's challenges go to former Local Rule 8.2.33, which is no longer in effect, the issues framed and briefed for review are moot. Although Thomas claims the amended local rule is essentially the same as the former, his current reestablished LPS conservatorship, which is not challenged, did not utilize the new amended rule. We do not issue advisory opinions on matters not yet before us. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
