Filed 5/17/17 In re A.R. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----


In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C082123


SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. J06267, STKJVDP20130000063)


Appellant E.J., mother of the minor A.R., appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 395.) During the pendency of this appeal, however, this court affirmed the termination of mother’s parental rights to A.R. (In re A.R. (Sept. 15, 2016, C078891) [nonpub. opn.].) Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
In light of our resolution of this appeal, we provide an abbreviated background summary.
On April 2, 2013, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the newborn minor, A.R. On February 6, 2014, the juvenile court declared the minor a dependent child of the court and denied mother reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11).
On April 22, 2014, mother filed a section 388 petition for modification of the February 6, 2014, order denying her reunification services. The juvenile court summarily denied mother’s petition stating there was no prima facie evidence to support the statements of changed circumstance. On October 2, 2014, mother filed a second petition for modification, seeking modification of the February 6, 2014, disposition order. The juvenile court also summarily denied that petition on November 12, 2014.
Mother appealed from the November 12, 2014, order summarily denying her petition and, on October 28, 2015, this court issued an opinion in case No. C077907 reversing the summary denial and ordering the juvenile court hold a hearing on mother’s petition. (In re A.R. (Oct. 28, 2015, C077907) [nonpub. opn.].) In our disposition, we ordered the juvenile court to hold a section 388 hearing on mother’s petition within 30 days of the issuance of our remittitur. Remittitur was issued on December 31, 2015.
On February 6, 2015, the section 366.26 hearing took place. Mother raised the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to the preference for the permanent plan of adoption under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), arguing the benefit to the minor of maintaining her relationship with the mother outweighed the benefit she would receive from adoption. At the conclusion of the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found that the exception did not apply. Parental rights were terminated and A.R. was freed for adoption. On March 17, 2015, mother appealed the order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption, raising the beneficial relationship exception to adoption. This court affirmed the order and remittitur was issued on November 16, 2016. (In re A.R., supra, C078891.)
The hearing on mother’s section 388 petition commenced on March 21, 2016, and concluded on April 11, 2016. The juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition and mother appealed that order on May 4, 2016. It is the April 11, 2016, order denying mother’s section 388 petition that is the subject of the instant appeal.
Because the section 388 hearing was not completed until after the section 366.26 hearing was already on appeal in this court, mother’s appeal from the section 388 hearing was still pending at the time we affirmed the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights, in September 2016. On October 14, 2016, we subsequently denied mother’s petition for rehearing and request to hold in abeyance the finalization of the termination order until the instant appeal was briefed and finalized.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s order denying her section 388 petition. She further argues that the reversal of the court’s denial of her section 388 petition must also result in the reversal of the order terminating her parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. We conclude mother’s appeal of the order denying her section 388 petition is moot and she may not, via a challenge to that order, obtain reversal of the now final order terminating her parental rights.
“An order [terminating parental rights] is final when the time for appeal has expired and no timely appeal has been filed or the order has been appealed and affirmed.” (In re Carrie M. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 530, 533, citing Adoption of Alexander S. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 857, 859; see In re Issac J. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 525, 535.) Collateral attacks, such as habeas corpus, may not be made on a final, nonmodifiable judgment in an adoption-related action where the trial court had jurisdiction to render the final judgment. (Adoption of Alexander S., supra, at pp. 867-868.)
Here, the order terminating parental rights is final, having been appealed and affirmed. (In re A.R., supra, C078891.) There is no dispute that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to enter the order. Thus, the order terminating parental rights is conclusive and we cannot grant the relief mother sought in her section 388 petition, reinstate parental rights, or grant any other effective relief. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1317 [mother’s parental rights cannot be restored even if appellate court agreed her section 388 petition was erroneously denied].) This appeal is moot.
Mother relies on In re Darlice C. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 459 (Darlice C.), for the proposition that direct appeal is not the only remedy to challenge an order terminating parental rights and that a collateral challenge to the judgment may be made in appropriate circumstances via petition for habeas corpus. She argues that, therefore, she can use a successful appeal from the order denying her section 388 petition to obtain reversal of the termination order. But, as mother acknowledges, the challenge in Darlice C. was made while the termination order remained pending on appeal. Here, we denied mother’s request to stay our decision affirming termination of parental rights, thus the termination order became final in November 2016 and is no longer pending on appeal. Indeed, Darlice C. notes that its circumstances are distinguished from those termination orders that are final and, therefore, barred from collateral attack. (Darlice C., supra, at p. 466 [“Since Darlice C.’s appeals from the termination orders remain pending, those orders are not final and Adoption of Alexander S. presents no bar to habeas corpus relief].)
Here, the termination order is final and nonmodifiable. We can afford no effective relief to mother and, therefore, dismiss the appeal as moot. (In re Jessica K., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1316-1317.)



III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.


/S/

RENNER, J.



We concur:


/S/

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.


/S/

DUARTE, J.