In re A.C. CA3

Filed 10/6/20 In re A.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C091595 Law.

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Super. Ct. No. 53-004953) AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

V.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

V.C., mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s January 21, 2020 order entered at an interim review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361.2, 395.)1 She contends the juvenile court’s finding that nontherapeutic visits would be detrimental to

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

1

the minor was not supported by the evidence, the court erred in delegating to the minor and father the authority to decide whether certain visits would take place, and the court erred in denying her request for a contested hearing before permitting father to move to Texas with the minor. During the pendency of this appeal, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and entered new visitation and custody orders. As a result, we dismiss the appeal as moot. BACKGROUND In light of our resolution of the issues raised, we provide a limited summary of the background facts. After numerous referrals stemming from mother’s alcohol abuse and related conduct, the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the then nine-year-old minor. The minor was detained from mother’s care on September 17, 2019, and placed in father’s custody. Father informed the court at the detention hearing that he intended to move to Texas where he had accepted a job, had relatives, and had a place to live. The juvenile court instructed father he could not move to Texas with the minor at that time but could visit Texas with the minor for a period of not more than eight days. Mother was provided visitation two times per week, but the minor was not to be forced to visit and he refused to visit. On October 8, 2019, mother’s counsel requested therapeutic visits be arranged because the minor was refusing to visit. The Department agreed to look into arranging therapeutic visits. The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the amended petition on October 30, 2019. Mother had not had any visits with the minor since her visit shortly before the detention hearing. Minor’s counsel stated the minor was “really opposed” to visits with mother and is “really, really, really angry about how she was treating him.” The minor did not feel safe having visits with mother but, if they were to be required, he requested