Court Opinion

ID: 9407895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 18:04:34.247368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.635286
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/10/23 In re J.D. CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

              IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION THREE

 In re J.D., a Person Coming Under the
 Juvenile Court Law.

 ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
 SERVICES AGENCY,
                                                                       G062034
      Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. 19DP0001)
                     v.
                                                                       OPINION
 C.P.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert
Gerard, Judge. Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Granted.
                   C.P., in pro. per, for Defendant and Appellant.
                   Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                             *               *               *
              C. P. is the maternal grandmother of J.D., who is the subject of these
dependency proceedings. C.P. appeals from an order denying her request to change court
order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (section 388) by which she sought
an order stopping an adoption hearing, resuming reunification services, recognizing her
relationship to J.D., and permitting her to visit J.D.
              The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal on the ground it became moot upon the finalization of J.D.’s adoption
and termination of dependency jurisdiction. We invited C.P. to file opposition to the
motion. She did not file opposition. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal as
moot.
              An appeal may become moot when subsequent events, including orders by
the juvenile court, make it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effective relief. (In
re Albert G. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 132, 134-135.) “As a general rule, an order
terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the
dependency proceedings moot.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) More
specifically, the adoption of a dependent child and termination of dependency jurisdiction
render moot an appeal from an order denying a section 388 petition requesting the
juvenile court to return a child to a former caretaker’s custody. (In re Albert G., at
pp. 134-135.) In Albert G., the Court of Appeal held the completion of the dependent
child’s adoption rendered moot the maternal aunt’s appeal from denial of a section 388
petition seeking return of the child to the aunt’s custody. The child’s “adoption meant the
trial court could not grant the change appellant sought in her petition, and also means
there is no remedy we could grant on appeal.” (In re Albert G., at p. 135.)

                                               2
              On November 21, 2022, three days after denying C.P.’s request to change
court order, the juvenile court issued an order finding “the permanent plan of adoption
                                                              1
has been achieved” and terminating dependency jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 366.3, subd. (a)(2).) This order has rendered C.P.’s appeal moot.
              J.D.’s adoption and the termination of dependency jurisdiction mean the
juvenile court would not be able to grant the relief C.P. sought in her request and,
consequently, there is no appellate remedy we can offer her. The juvenile court would
not be able to grant C.P. her requested relief of stopping the adoption proceedings
because the adoption hearing has been conducted and the adoption of J.D. is completed.
The juvenile court would not be able to grant C.P.’s request for resumption of
reunification services because, assuming C.P. was ever eligible for reunification services,
reunification is no longer possible. Adoption of J.D. and termination of dependency
jurisdiction mean that neither we nor the juvenile court would be able to grant C.P.
visitation rights. “In dependency proceedings, an order terminating parental rights is not
only conclusive and binding upon the birth parents, but also effectuates a complete and
final legal termination of the parental relationship. [Citations.] The parent-child
relationship enjoys no legal recognition after termination of parental rights.” (In re
Noreen G. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1391.)

              1
                 We have granted SSA’s motion to take judicial notice of the juvenile
court’s minute order entered on November 21, 2022. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459,
subd. (a).) C.P. did not appeal from an order terminating dependency jurisdiction; her
notice of appeal identifies only the order denying her request to change court order.

                                             3
             Finally, no relief can be granted on C.P.’s request that the juvenile court
recognize her relationship with J.D. because she sought such recognition by means of
stopping the adoption proceedings and resuming reunification services and visitation.
             The appeal is dismissed.

                                                SANCHEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

                                            4