1

Filed 7/30/21 In re C.F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Sutter)

----

In re C.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C092312

SUTTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 

DPSQ180000093)

The underlying dependency case giving rise to this appeal was filed in January 

2018 on behalf of minor C. and his sibling, L., who were then 10 years of age. In this 

appeal, appellant, father of C. and L., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders

establishing a legal guardianship for C. after reunification efforts with parents had failed. 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Appellant does not challenge the establishment of 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 
2

the guardianship in this appeal but, rather, complains of the lack of concurrent orders 

relating to visitation and the placement of C. in a home separate from his sibling. In light 

of subsequent developments in the underlying matter, we now dismiss this appeal as 

moot.

“It is well settled that an appellate court will decide only actual controversies. 

Consistent therewith, it has been said that an action which originally was based upon a 

justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if the questions raised therein 

have become moot by subsequent acts or events.” (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 

199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) When subsequent events “ ‘render[] it impossible for this court, if 

it should decide the case in favor of [appellant], to grant . . . any effectual relief whatever, 

the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.’ ” (Consol. 

etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 863.) 

“Mootness” is an apt term to describe the reality of the situation before us. In his 

opening brief, appellant argues: (1) the juvenile court erred by failing “to revisit its 

previous orders denying any visitation between appellant and [C.]”; (2) the juvenile court 

erred by failing to issue explicit sibling visitation orders for the minor and L.; and (3) the

Agency failed to justify continuing the minor and L. in separate placements and to 

establish it was making continuing efforts to resolve any conflicts between the siblings,

as required by section 16002. 

During the pendency of this appeal, this court received copies of juvenile court 

orders following hearings on October 22 and November 17, 2020, which substantially 

affect the instant appeal. The record was augmented with the transcripts from these two 

hearings. These records establish, as appellant concedes, that the issues raised in 

appellant’s opening brief have been rendered moot. The augmented record clearly shows 

that counseling has been implemented to assist the minor and his sibling in addressing the 

issues that led them to being separated, that the siblings are progressing in resolving those 
3

issues but prefer their separate placements and do not wish to be placed together, and that 

both C. and L. made it clear that they do not want any contact with appellant. 

As the augmented record reflects that each of appellants’ assignments of error

have been adequately addressed, we cannot provide any meaningful relief in this appeal 

and, as conceded by appellant, his claims are now moot. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 

79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315; In re Pablo D. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 759, 761.) In his 

supplemental brief, appellant requests this court nonetheless proceed to a formal 

judgement because “the dependency system may need to be reminded from time to time 

of the importance of maintaining the relationship between bonded siblings,” and a 

published opinion by this court may remind the bench and bar to comply with section 

16002. We decline to do so.

Cases reaching the merits of otherwise moot claims have involved “matters of 

broad public interest that are likely to recur” (In re Mark C. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 433, 

440; see In re Jody R. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1615, 1621-1622) or “issue[s] capable of 

repetition yet evading review” (In re Raymond G. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 964, 967). The 

issues raised by appellant in this case are neither and are also particularly fact-driven. 

Generally, we do not exercise our discretion to decide moot issues when the issues are 

fact-driven, as their resolution is unlikely to provide much guidance in future cases. (See, 

e.g., MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 

204, 215 [dismissing moot appeal “given the fact-driven nature of the questions 

presented”]; Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 228 [declining to decide a moot 

issue “dependent upon the specific facts of a given situation”].) 

“ ‘[T]he duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual 

controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions 

upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law 

which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’ ” (Consol. etc. Corp. v. 
4

United A. etc. Workers, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 863.) We decline the invitation to proceed 

to a formal and published judgment in this case which is now moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

MURRAY, J.