In re Nicholas M.
Filed 4/25/07 In re Nicholas M. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re NICHOLAS M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PILAR M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | D049809 (Super. Ct. No. SJ011591) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William E. Lehnhardt, Judge. (Retired judge of the Imperial Sup. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.
Pilar and Rene M. (together the parents) appeal an order of the juvenile court made at a six-month review hearing continuing placement of their minor son, Nicholas M., in out of home care. The parents contend the court erred by finding Nicholas's return to their custody would be detrimental to his physical or emotional well-being, and the court applied an incorrect legal standard in making its decision. We conclude the appeal is moot because Nicholas was returned to his parents' custody at the 12-month hearing and we cannot grant effective relief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2006, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency), filed a petition in the juvenile court on behalf of two-month-old Nicholas under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleging he had sustained nonaccidental injuries consisting of bruises on his ribs, thighs and chest, and a fractured first metatarsal, as a result of neglectful or unreasonable acts or omissions by his parents. When Nicholas was first examined and tested at Children's Hospital, the examining physician concluded the injuries were not consistent with child abuse. Because the parents could not explain how Nicholas sustained these injuries, the parents were referred to a social worker. Thereafter, physicians at Polinsky Children's Center examined Nicholas and concluded the bruises and fracture were consistent with nonaccidental injuries and Nicholas was at significant risk of serious harm if not removed from his parents' custody.
The court sustained the allegations of the petition, declared Nicholas a dependent, removed him from his parents' custody and placed him with the maternal grandmother. The court gave the social worker discretion to allow the parents to live with Nicholas in the maternal grandmother's home.
According to a six-month review report, the parents were living with Nicholas in the maternal grandmother's home. The parents had complied with the requirements of their reunification plans, including parenting classes, psychological evaluations and individual therapy, and were actively participating in in-home support services. Pilar's psychological evaluator concluded Pilar could benefit from individual therapy and other services to address her immaturity and lack of parenting skills. Because of the severity and unexplained nature of Nicholas's injuries, the social worker recommended the parents continue with therapeutic services and participate in conjoint therapy while Agency supervised the case for another six months. She also recommended Nicholas remain with the maternal grandmother while the parents gradually regained custody of him.
At the six-month review hearing, the parents requested Nicholas be placed with them on the condition they be allowed to remain in the maternal grandmother's home. After considering the evidence and hearing argument of counsel, the court found reasonable services had been provided and the parents had made substantive progress with their case plans, but returning Nicholas to their custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to him.
DISCUSSION
A
In a letter dated April 6, 2007, this court informed the parties of its intention to take judicial notice of the juvenile court's April 5, 2007, minute order showing Nicholas had been returned to his parents' custody at the 12-month hearing. The letter invited the parties to file supplemental briefing on whether the issue raised in this appeal the propriety of the juvenile court's order denying return of Nicholas to parental custody at the six-month review hearing was moot in light of the court's subsequent order. The parents responded, arguing the issue is not moot because: (1) the error has the potential to affect the outcome of future proceedings; and (2) they remain liable to the county for the cost of attorney fees incurred on their behalf and Nicholas's behalf during the additional, and unnecessary, period of reunification. County counsel argues the issue is moot and the relief the parents seek in this appeal has already been granted.
B
An appellate court will not review questions which are moot and only of academic importance, nor will it determine abstract questions of law at the request of a party who shows no substantial rights can be affected by the decision either way. (Keefer v. Keefer (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 335, 337; Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1114.) The duty of an appellate court is to decide actual controversies and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law that cannot affect the matter at issue in the case before it. (In re Audrey D. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 34, 39, fn. 4.)
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 Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.) 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 one capable of repetition, yet evading review. (In re Raymond G. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 964, 967.) We decide on a case-by-case basis whether subsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether our decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding. (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404-405; In re Dylan T. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 769.)
C
Here, whether Nicholas should have been returned to the parents' custody at the six-month review hearing is no longer a " 'live' " controversy. (In re Hirenia C. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 504, 518.) The juvenile court has since returned Nicholas to his parents and thus, no effective relief can be afforded them. The matter is moot because there remain no material questions for our determination. (See Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.)
Further, whether the court should have returned Nicholas to the parents at the six-month review hearing is not a question of continuing public importance because it simply presents a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of detriment. The court has determined it is no longer detrimental to Nicholas to place him with his parents. The issue presented is not likely to recur and is not one of "substantial public interest which [is] capable of repetition, yet evade[s] review." (In re Natasha A. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 28, 38.)
The parents claim the issue is not moot because it has the potential to affect the outcome of future proceedings. For example, they suggest the possibility Nicholas could again be removed from their custody, which would result in reducing their remaining reunification time because of the unnecessary six months Nicholas was out of their care. However, any prejudicial impact of the court's ruling on a future proceeding is entirely speculative.
The parents also claim the erroneous six-month review order may impact subsequent proceedings in Nicholas's dependency case because they remain liable for an additional six months of attorney fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 903.1. Again, we decline to ignore the mootness doctrine based on speculation about what might happen in another proceeding sometime in the future.
The parents have received the relief they sought in this appeal return of Nicholas to their care. Conditions no longer exist warranting removal of Nicholas from parental custody and there is no ongoing placement order that continues to adversely affect the parents. The parents are entitled to no relief beyond that which they have already obtained. Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
HALLER, Acting P.J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
