In re Z.E. CA1/5

Filed 10/4/13 In re Z.E. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re Z.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137514 v. PATRICK S., (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. JD11-3173) Defendant and Appellant.

Patrick S. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court‟s order denying his motion to be declared minor Z.E.‟s presumed father. Because the court subsequently terminated appellant‟s parental rights and the order is final, we dismiss this appeal as moot. BACKGROUND In May 2011, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (respondent) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 petition alleging that Z.E. (Minor), a newborn, was a child coming within the jurisdiction of the court. The petition alleged, among other things, that the Minor‟s mother, Marjorie B. (Mother), and alleged father, Joe E. (also referred to as Tollie E.), had issues relating to mental health, substance abuse,

1 All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

and domestic violence. Minor was declared a dependent of the court. Minor has resided with his current caretakers since January 2012. Joe E., who is not Minor‟s biological father, was declared Minor‟s presumed father, but the juvenile court subsequently revoked the designation at his request. In June 2012, Mother disclosed to the Agency that appellant is Minor‟s biological father and that appellant was incarcerated in Texas. Appellant was released in August or October and moved to San Francisco on October 27. A paternity test confirmed appellant is Minor‟s biological father. In December 2012, appellant moved for presumed father status pursuant to Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 (Kelsey S.). The juvenile court denied the motion, finding that appellant failed to “promptly step forward and assume his full parental responsibilities for [Minor‟s] well-being, financial, emotional and otherwise.” Appellant filed the present appeal from the court‟s order denying his motion. Subsequently, in an order filed May 21, 2013, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Mother and appellant.2 No appeal was filed from that order, which is now final. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406.) DISCUSSION Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in denying his motion for presumed father status and respondent failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C., § 1901, et seq.). In response to a question posed by this court in a request for supplemental briefing, respondent argues the issues raised by appellant are moot due to the finality of the May 2013 order terminating appellant‟s parental rights. We agree. “When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed. [Citation.] „ “ „[T]he duty of this court . . . 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