In re Jenna M.
Filed 5/18/06 In re Jenna M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
In re JENNA M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON M., Defendant and Appellant. | D047790 (Super. Ct. No. EJ02673) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Dismissed.
BACKGROUND
When Jenna M. was born on September 20, 2005, she and her mother tested positive for methamphetamine. On September 26, 2005, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition on Jenna's behalf pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). At the September 27, 2005, detention hearing, Jason M. and mother were present.[1] They were appointed counsel. The court found a prima facie showing had been made that Jenna was a child described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), ordered reunification services for mother and Jason and ordered Jenna detained with her grandfather. Liberal visitation was ordered between Jenna, her mother and Jason.
At the time of the detention hearing Jason filled out and submitted a paternity inquiry in which he stated that he had not married Jenna's mother, had not supported Jenna, did not sign a paternity declaration at the hospital and had not done anything else to claim Jenna was his child. He stated Jenna's mother told him he was Jenna's father and he in turn told family and friends that he was her father.
Social worker Abbie Brack prepared the jurisdiction and disposition report. In the report she explained mother and Jason had not signed the paternity declaration and birth certificate at the hospital at the time of Jenna's birth. For religious reasons, instead of a birth certificate they wanted to enter her name in the family Bible. They did not sign the declaration of paternity because they did not understand the legal nature of the document. Nor did they want a social security number issued for Jenna.
Mother and Jason wanted to reunify with Jenna and their visits with her were appropriate and loving.
Contested jurisdiction and disposition hearings were held on November 22, 2005. At the conclusion of the hearings the court found the petition true by clear and convincing evidence. However, it struck the allegations that mother had little prenatal care, that Jason suspected mother was using drugs during her pregnancy and that Jason had failed to, and was unable to, stop mother's drug usage. It amended the petition to state Jason suspected mother used drugs during their relationship. The court declared Jenna a dependent of the court by clear and convincing evidence.
In its ruling, the court remarked that it had very little information about Jason due in large part to his unwillingness to communicate. The court removed custody from mother and Jason and noted Jason was a biological parent who had no absolute right to custody. Jason had not demonstrated that he was a presumed father. Jenna was placed with a grandparent. Reunification services were ordered for both mother and Jason, and they were ordered into the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) in order to rule out whether Jason had a drug problem.
Jason indicated to the court that he had not yet signed the papers necessary to provide Jenna with a social security number or birth certificate as had been previously ordered by the court. The court set a contempt hearing.
Jason filed this appeal, arguing that pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2 he has a statutory right and constitutional right to physical custody of Jenna, that the court was confused as to Jason's rights and that based on his status there was no clear and convincing evidence of detriment.
Approximately one month after the disposition hearing Jason and mother executed a declaration of paternity with the State Department of Social Services and on April 6, 2006, filed the document with the juvenile court. A certified copy of that filing is attached to respondent's motion to augment filed in this court on April 12, 2006.[2]
DISCUSSION
Based on the execution and filing of the declaration of paternity, respondent requests we dismiss Jason's appeal. As respondent notes, the signing and filing of the declaration of paternity changes Jason's status from one of discretionary rights to that of presumed parent entitled to certain absolute rights in all dependency proceedings. His status is thus fundamentally different than that upon which the court was compelled to act. (Fam. Code, §§ 7611, 7573; In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 448; In re Liam L. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 739, 743-747.)
In his reply brief Jason agrees that his appeal is moot. He opposes dismissal, however, essentially on the grounds the errors he alleges might occur again. He also argues the matters he asserts should be decided on the merits to clarify the law.
By letter dated April 18, 2006, counsel for Jenna agrees the appeal is moot and requests it be dismissed.
When an appeal becomes moot it is the duty of a Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal. (In re Ruby T. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1204). We assume that Jason's rights will now be determined by his status as presumed father and therefore there is no need to consider the discretionary rulings of the court. We decline to consider the merits of the arguments presented by Jason.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Mother is not a party to this appeal.
[2] We hereby grant the motion to augment.
