In re Amber P.
Filed 10/5/06 In re Amber P. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re AMBER P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B189367 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK52215) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAUREEN P., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David Milton, Judge. Dismissed.
Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Amir Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________
Twelve-year-old Amber P. is a dependent of the court under a permanent plan of long-term foster care. The dependency court granted Amber’s mother, Maureen P., twice-monthly visits monitored by Amber’s therapist and gave the Department of Children and Family Services discretion to liberalize visitation. Mother did not appeal the order and it is now final.
On February 8, 2006, a hearing was held under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3 to review Amber’s permanent plan. The Department reported that mother’s recent conduct during visitation was detrimental to Amber and recommended that the dependency court vacate the visitation order and order that mother not be allowed any visits. Mother opposed the recommendation. She asked the dependency court to continue the hearing for 30 days to permit her to bring in evidence concerning the Department’s allegations. The dependency court did not grant mother’s request for a continuance. Instead, the dependency court rejected the Department’s recommendation to terminate visitation and ruled that the visitation order would continue.
Mother timely appealed from the orders of February 8, 2006. Her sole contention is that the dependency court should have afforded her a contested evidentiary hearing on the Department’s recommendation to terminate visitation. The Department responded that the contention is moot, because at a subsequent hearing to review Amber’s permanent plan held on August 9, 2006, the dependency court granted mother’s request for a contested visitation hearing.[1] Mother replied that the contested hearing had not yet taken place.
The contested hearing took place on September 11, 2006.[2] Witnesses testified and the dependency court issued a visitation order.
As a result of the hearing held on September 11, 2006, mother has now been afforded the relief she is seeking in the instant appeal--a full hearing on visitation. “When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.” (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315; see also In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404-405.) As mother had her contested evidentiary visitation hearing while this appeal was pending, no effective relief may be afforded her even were we to find merit in her appeal of the denial of a contested hearing.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
KRIEGLER, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
MOSK, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] The Department asked the dependency court to take judicial notice of the minute order of the proceedings on August 8, 2006, and we granted the request. (Order filed Aug. 22, 2006.)
[2] We have taken judicial notice of the minute order of the September 11, 2006 hearing.
