In re Ann W. CA1/2

Filed 3/19/15 In re Ann W. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re Ann W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A141757 v. ROLAND W., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD143057) Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION This appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional order challenges that portion of the court’s order continuing in effect a prior “no contact” order in a family law matter involving appellant Roland W. (Father). Because Father was ultimately awarded visitation in a subsequent order, we conclude that this matter is moot and dismiss the appeal. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts underlying the jurisdictional and dispositional order are largely irrelevant to our resolution of this matter. Therefore, we confine our summary to those facts that concern the issue of visitation by Father.

1

Roland W. is the father of 10-year-old Ann W., who was detained from her mother’s home on February 7, 2014. At that time, Father was living in a motel in Colorado and supporting himself from social security disability payments. After Ann was detained, Father expressed a desire to maintain his relationship with her and have contact with her. The San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) was generally supportive of this request, and recommended that Father receive services to improve his parenting skills. The issue of Father’s visitation with Ann arose at the jurisdictional and dispositional settlement conference held before Commissioner Catherine Lyons on March 19, 2014. Father appeared by telephone because he lived out of state. At the hearing, the Agency informed the court that Father was requesting “an order that he gets weekly phone calls with the minor.” However, according to counsel for the Agency as well as for Ann, there was an “existing order . . . for there to be no contact of any kind between [Father] and Ann.” Counsel did not provide the court with a copy of this order, which was described as having originated in the Family Law department about six or eight months earlier and appears to have been related to divorce proceedings between Mother and Father. Father’s counsel had not seen the family law case file, which she described as involving a “very contentious two-year-long divorce case.” The court pointed out that “[c]learly this issue [of visitation] is going to take a lot more time than we have today to go into . . . .” The court also acknowledged that Father’s counsel, who had just been appointed that day, would need additional time to explore the issue. Counsel for Mother informed the court that visitation was “still under discussion” and asked the court to continue “the current” order, which the court clarified was, based on minor’s counsel’s representation, “a no contact order from Family Court.” The court indicated an intention not to “hold up” the matter of jurisdiction and disposition