Filed 6/12/17 In re Emily M. CA4/3


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


In re EMILY M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EMILY M.,

Movant and Appellant.



G054294

(Super. Ct. No. DP025671-001)

O P I N I O N
45542
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary L. Moorhead, Judge. Appeal dismissed as moot. Request for judicial notice. Granted. Motion to dismiss. Granted.
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Movant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Emily M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition. She sought removal from her mother Laura M.’s custody and placement in foster care just before her 18th birthday so that she would be eligible for federal funding as a nonminor dependent (§ 11400, subd. (v)(1)) under the California Fostering Connections to Success Act. (Assem. Bill No. 12 (2009-2010 Reg. Sess. (AB 12); Assem. Bill No. 212 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) (AB 212).) Emily contends the evidence she presented at the hearing on her section 388 petition demonstrated a risk of detriment if she remained in mother’s care and therefore compelled her removal (§ 361, subd. (c)). Her opening brief also asserts the court erred by denying her alternative request for continued dependency status under section 303. For the reasons expressed below, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2014, authorities detained 16-year-old Emily (born November 1998) at juvenile hall after a physical altercation with mother. Emily told a social worker a verbal argument with mother concerning Emily’s boyfriend escalated to a physical confrontation. Emily stated she would not live with father and wished to go home to mother. The family had a child welfare history dating back to 2001, including several referrals in 2014. Many of the referrals concerned Emily’s disobedience, frequent runaway incidents, and dating older men.
Authorities did not pursue charges, but mother refused to pick Emily up from juvenile hall, resulting in the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filing a juvenile dependency petition (§ 300, subds. (b), (g)) on November 19, 2014. The petition alleged mother had not provided appropriate supervision and father had not protected Emily or attempted to obtain custody of Emily after learning she was homeless. At the initial petition (detention) hearing, the juvenile court detained Emily pending the jurisdictional hearing. She was placed at Orangewood Children and Family Center (Orangewood).
The social worker reported Emily had run away from Orangewood on December 2. She returned, but ran away on subsequent occasions. She briefly came to mother’s home on New Year’s Day 2015, stating her boyfriend assaulted her. Mother called paramedics, but Emily panicked and ran away again. Emily would later deny domestic violence incidents with the boyfriend. Emily was well behind in terms of school credits largely because of frequent absences. Mother told a public health nurse Emily had expressed feeling depressed, and she admitted consuming alcohol and cutting her legs and arms. Despite their arguments, mother claimed she and Emily had a good relationship. She wanted Emily to return home and mother was willing to participate in any necessary services. The social worker provided referrals for counseling, parenting classes, and a bus pass, coupled with basic needs resource information.
The social worker recommended sustaining the petition with reunification services for mother, enhancement services for father, and suitable placement orders. Emily returned to Orangewood in mid-March, but ran away again a day later. She appeared in court for the jurisdiction hearing on March 19, 2015. The court sustained the allegations of the petition as amended, and authorized SSA to release Emily to mother under the Conditional Release Intensive Supervision Program (CRISP).
As of May 2015, the family was living at a motel. Mother was still working full time, receiving child support, and intending to apply for food stamps. Emily attended ninth grade at a continuation school. Emily reported she was doing well, had enough food and clothes and felt safe living with mother and her brothers. But later in May, mother reported having difficulty paying rent, and was again given basic need referrals. A team decision meeting on May 27, 2015, identified several concerns. The family’s financial stability was precarious. Mother faced eviction from the motel for nonpayment of rent. Emily continued running away. Mother claimed counseling had not commenced due to a lack of funding, although the court previously had authorized funds for conjoint counseling.
At the June 2015 disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared Emily a dependent and placed her with mother and directed SSA to provide family maintenance services. The court directed SSA to ensure counseling started immediately for mother and Emily. Emily’s service objectives under the case plan included age-appropriate child-oriented services, participation in individual, conjoint, family or group therapy until the goals of therapy had been accomplished, abiding by placement rules, attending school regularly, and completion of class and homework assignments.
By late August 2015, mother had not followed through on obtaining recommended services. Mother reported Emily had been staying with friends for a few weeks, and mother was living in her van. Mother obtained a motel room after she received child support money. Mother did not attend intake appointments for counseling, and was terminated from the program. SSA recognized “counseling seem[s] less a priority” given the family’s transient lifestyle and financial difficulties.
In advance of the December 2015 review hearing, the social worker recommended terminating dependent child proceedings with exit orders. Emily had recently turned 17. Mother’s cooperation with the case plan was described as minimal. She and the children had been transient since the last review hearing, currently rented a room in a house, but sought other accommodations. Mother had not followed through on parenting education or counseling referrals, although mother and Emily attended two joint therapy sessions. Mother claimed she had continued to work and also received almost a $1,000 a month in child support. By late October 2015, Emily reported mother was meeting her basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing, but Emily was not attending school. She appeared to be taking on the responsibility of seeking and managing mother’s referrals. The social worker reported the family was struggling, but doing its best to maintain adequate housing, Emily’s basic needs were being marginally met, and there was no evidence of physical harm to Emily.
By late January 2016, the family lived in a house shared with another family, but faced eviction in early April 2016. Emily was now staying with her 26-year-old male friend, Brian, along with his parents and grandparents. Emily planned to reside there with her brothers. Mother confirmed she was “ok” with this plan and Emily’s brothers would keep her informed about Emily.
The social worker changed her recommendation from terminating jurisdiction to keeping the case open so SSA could continue to provide resources and support to the family. At the review hearing on April 18, 2016, the court followed the recommendation, and maintained Emily in mother’s care under continued family maintenance supervision.
The social worker met with mother and Emily on several occasions between May and August 2016. In mid-August, Emily told the social worker she had been out of mother’s motel residence for some time. She was staying with friends, including Brian. Mother was not giving her money. A child abuse report alleged neglect of Emily. By late July 2016, Emily was not attending school, but stated she intended to look into enrollment at continuation school.
Mother advised the social worker she was working two jobs. The social worker referred mother to shelter information and advised she needed to make arrangements and provide for Emily if she was staying elsewhere.
In her initial report for the September 2016 review hearing, the social worker recommended that Emily remain a dependent child and stay in mother’s custody, and suggested the court schedule a review hearing to coincide with Emily’s 18th birthday in November 2016.
In late September 2016, Emily advised the social worker she was living with mother, but often stayed with her adult boyfriend. During the meeting, Emily called mother, and the social worker advised mother SSA was concerned about Emily staying with an adult boyfriend. Mother noted she had space available for Emily, and the social worker drove Emily to the residence where mother rented a room. Mother signed a referral for parenting education and agreed to schedule healthcare appointments for Emily. She stated she wanted to keep Emily “in line” and for Emily to focus on school. The social worker told mother Emily could not spend the night with the boyfriend, and to call the police if she did.
On October 12, Emily filed a section 388 petition requesting the juvenile court remove her from mother’s custody. The petition recited the numerous occasions Emily resided away from mother, the absence of consistent schooling and medical care, mother leaving Emily to “‘fend for herself.’” The court granted a hearing on the petition.
The social worker’s final report before the hearing noted mother in late October had provided Emily with some personal items and money. The social worker provided educational, employment, and resource referrals. Emily stated she was staying with a female friend because she knew her boyfriend “could get in trouble.” Mother knew the friend and approved of Emily staying there. Emily reported she stayed with mother occasionally, but preferred to stay with her friend because mother and her siblings were often in a single room. Mother asked Emily to live with her after she turned 18. The social worker believed removal from mother’s custody was unnecessary because Emily had current and future living arrangement possibilities, and mother was offering both present and future support for the child.
At the November 2016 hearing that concluded a day before Emily’s 18th birthday, Emily testified she had been living with a friend, Jessica, for a few months, and had lived with her adult boyfriend and his family for a couple of months before that. It “was just a relationship” and “not anything crazy like” an illegal sexual relationship, but she left so the boyfriend would not get in trouble.
Emily saw mother once or twice a month when she lived at her boyfriend’s residence. Mother bought her groceries once a month, but Emily was fed “mostly” by the boyfriend’s family and other friends. Mother had a place for Emily to sleep and was also aware where Emily was staying. Emily felt safe at her friend’s residence. She had lived in a home with mother for over six months in early 2016, but was attending continuation school at that time. Mother had taken Emily clothes shopping once or twice in the previous six months. Emily testified she previously had stayed with other friends or in parks, and claimed the social worker was aware of her staying at a park about two or three months before her testimony.
Emily had not “been to the doctor in forever.” She had asked mother to take her to the doctor, but mother was always working. Mother encouraged Emily to go to school, and signed her up, but Emily only attended a few times because the bus ride to school took nearly two hours.
Emily testified her life had been unstable for years. She did not feel endangered with mother, but favored removal because when she turned 18, she would have nowhere to go. She delayed expressing a desire for removal because she recently realized she would be on her own with no one obligated to assist her. She was afraid, had very few personal possessions, and had no state-issued identification. She believed support after her 18th birthday as a nonminor dependent would help her going forward. She would return to live with mother if not allowed to stay at her friend’s residence, although mother told her to figure out her own living situation. The social worker provided referrals for services after she turned 18.
Mother testified she was unsure when she would have to move from the residence where she had resided for the previous two or three months. She provided Emily with things she needed, and had food available at her residence. Mother worked two jobs, and would assist Emily in applying for jobs and enrolling in school. Mother was upset when she learned of Emily’s relationship with Brian and tried to persuade her against it. She did not know Emily was living with Brian, but admitted there was a period of time when she did not know where Emily was living. When she found out about Emily’s prior abusive relationship, she made multiple police reports. Mother tried to make Emily go to school, registering her and taking her many times. Emily had health insurance through her father, but mother conceded she had not given Emily medical and educational authorizations to allow her to seek out services on her own. Mother knew her daughter was now staying with a friend, who mother had known for years. Mother paid for Emily’s cell phone, and they spoke more than 10 times a week. Emily was always welcome at mother’s residence.
The juvenile court denied the section 388 petition. It recognized the family’s difficult circumstances, but noted mother had a residence and the ability to provide Emily with food, clothing, and emotional support. Emily chose to stay with a friend, but mother welcomed her home at any time. Emily had no apparent medical issues requiring attention, and could receive medical authorization from mother. The court noted it “would like nothing better than to financially assist” Emily to obtain nonminor dependent status, but there were “literally hundreds, if not thousands” of children suffering from “similar dire financial straits,” and these circumstances did not meet the standard to take a child from their parents. The court also denied Emily’s alternative request to maintain her as a dependent under section 303, but did not terminate the dependency proceedings.


II
DISCUSSION
This Appeal Is Moot
SSA contends Emily’s appeal is moot. In support, SSA filed a request for judicial notice of the juvenile court’s minute order dated December 21, 2016, Exhibit A to the request, and the court’s signed order and findings on the same date, Exhibit B to the request.
The December 21 orders reflect the juvenile court found it necessary to keep Emily “under the court’s jurisdiction,” and authorized SSA “to draw, bill and accept funds for” Emily’s “care, support, maintenance and special expenditures . . . as authorized by law.” The court directed SSA to assess transferring Emily’s case to the nonminor dependent unit, and to formulate a case plan to assist Emily with her transition to independent living. The court set a hearing on January 17, 2017, to review the case plan, and a hearing on June 5, 2017, for a status review. We hereby grant the unopposed request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 459 [reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in section 452], 452 [permitting judicial notice of records of any court of this state]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a).)
Based on these records, SSA moves to dismiss the appeal as moot. (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 [appeal becomes moot when an event strips the appellate court of the ability to grant effective relief].) SSA asserts Emily’s claim the court erred by denying her section 388 petition became moot by operation of law after the juvenile court’s November 9, 2016, order because Emily turned 18, and a parent no longer has custody over a person who is an adult. SSA asserts this court cannot grant effective relief “as to what seems the fundamental underlying motive for Emily’s petition, i.e. triggering nonminor dependent status under section 11400, subdivision (v) and its concomitant financial and supervisory support structures. To qualify for such status, Emily had to be under a plan of foster care at the time of her 18th birthday, something that is now impossible.” SSA also notes the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over Emily, which moots her claim concerning section 303.
Emily opposes the motion to dismiss. She agrees her status as an adult prevents the juvenile court from acting on her request should we reverse, but asserts she remains a nonminor dependent, and “the issues she has raised in her appeal should be reviewed on the merits. Her background, the public’s interest concerning court resources, [SSA’s] administration of services to her, the status of her education, job skills and her health and welfare are still at issue and this evidence, included in her entire court file, which the court would take judicial notice of, bears upon any further and subsequent orders of the court.” She also asserts the court should exercise discretion to rule on her appeal because it presents important questions of public interest, capable of repetition, yet evading review. (In re A.M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1078-1079.)
Emily’s claim the court erred by denying her section 388 petition became moot by operation of law because Emily turned 18, and mother no longer has custody of her. Even if this court reversed, the juvenile court could not remove Emily from mother’s custody and place her in foster care so that she could be deemed a nonminor dependent. (§ 11400, subdivision (v) [dependent child must have been under a plan of foster care at the time of her 18th birthday].) We also decline to exercise discretion to determine whether the court erred in denying Emily’s petition. Risk assessment and evaluation of the adequacy of services depends on the unique facts of each dependency case. There are numerous opportunities for adjustment and modification of custody orders and services, as well as review of those decisions, over the course of a dependency case. There is no appreciable danger issues similar to those raised by Emily will evade future review.
In her reply brief, Emily withdraws her claim the juvenile court erred by denying her alternative request for continued dependency status under section 303. As the judicially noticed December 21 order reflects, the court retained jurisdiction over Emily.
III
DISPOSITION
The appeal from the November 9, 2016, postjudgment order is dismissed as moot.



ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:



BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.



THOMPSON, J.