FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION ONE
December 21, 2010
IN RE P.A., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
SHARRON A., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(San Diego County Super. Ct. No. J511465A & C) Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Dismissed.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irion, J.
In re P.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Sharron A. seeks review of the juvenile court's order limiting her visitation with her daughter, P'J.A., to a therapeutic setting at a prima facie hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code*fn1 section 388. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
P'J.A. (PJ) is a 14-year-old girl who has been the subject of three dependency proceedings, starting from birth. Her case history is detailed in our nonpublished opinions (In re [P.A.] (Apr. 2, 1998, D028631, D029174) [nonpub opn.]; In re P.A. (Jul. 16, 2009, D054070) [nonpub. opn.]).
PJ's mother, Sharron A., has a history of substance abuse, child welfare service intervention and incarceration. Her parental rights had been terminated to another daughter, who was born with a positive toxicology for cocaine, and she has a son who was also involved in dependency proceedings.
During PJ's current dependency proceedings, Sharron was convicted of assault with force and was incarcerated throughout the reunification period. She wrote weekly letters to PJ. PJ wrote her mother frequently and they had some telephone contact.
On November 19, 2009, at the 18-month review hearing, the court selected long-term foster care as a permanent plan for PJ. The court continued PJ's placement at the San Pascual Academy (Academy).
Sharron was paroled on October 15, 2009. On January 14, 2010, she telephoned the social worker and asked her to set up visitation with PJ.
The social worker arranged a supervised visit between Sharron and PJ on February 5, 2010. In response to an incident involving PJ at the Academy, Sharron asked two civil attorneys to be present. The social worker asked the attorneys to leave because it was PJ's first contact with her mother since December 2008. Sharron arrived over an hour late. She was visibly irate and began yelling at the social worker for giving her the wrong directions. Sharron continued screaming in the school lobby with staff and students present.
During the visit, PJ spoke and acted like a baby when interacting with her mother.
On March 3, 2010, minor's counsel filed a modification petition under section 388 asking the court to limit Sharron's visitation with PJ to a therapeutic setting.
The facility social worker supervised a second visit between Sharron and PJ on March 5, 2010. Sharron arrived with a hostile attitude. PJ used a "toddler walk" and a baby voice when she was with her mother. Sharron borrowed PJ's cell phone, telling her that she would add more minutes to it. PJ had just used her allowance to put minutes on the phone. When Sharron returned the phone, there were no minutes on it. This confused PJ.
On April 11, 2010, PJ had a scheduled supervised visit with Sharron. The visit went well. Sharron was appropriate in redirecting PJ and she was not hostile or argumentative with staff.
A prima facie hearing on minor counsel's modification petition was held on March 15, 2010. The court limited Sharron's visitation with PJ to a therapeutic setting pending a contested hearing on the petition.
Sharron filed a notice of appeal from the temporary visitation order.
On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the juvenile court minute order issued June 9, 2010. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.) At that hearing, the court found that the section 388 petition was not necessary, took the matter off calendar and ordered that visits between Sharron and PJ were to be supervised.
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. [Citation.] (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054; In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.)
The court's order of June 9, 2010, granted Sharron supervised visitation with PJ and superseded its previous order limiting Sharron's visitation with PJ to a therapeutic setting. This intervening event renders moot the issue concerning the validity of the temporary order for therapeutic visitation. Our decision concerning the order for therapeutic visitation would not affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding; therefore, we cannot grant effective relief. (In re Esperanza C., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1054; In re Anna S., supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1498.)
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J. McINTYRE, J.