In re M.P. CA3

Filed 10/13/20 In re M.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re M.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C090720 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD239646) CHILD, FAMILY, AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

M.P., father of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s orders, entered at the six month review hearing, which returned the minor to mother’s custody with family maintenance services and terminated his reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, 395.)1 He contends the orders must be reversed because he was not provided

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

1

statutorily compliant notice of the hearing and the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard in terminating his services. He also contends the juvenile court and the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family, and Adult Services (Department) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). During the pendency of this appeal, however, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and entered new visitation and custody orders. This court has received a copy of the juvenile court’s March 12, 2020, exit orders awarding joint legal custody of the minor to mother and appellant, sole physical custody of the minor to mother, and terminating the dependency. Having complied with the provisions of Evidence Code section 459, subdivision (d), this court takes judicial notice of the juvenile court’s March 12, 2020, orders, which were not appealed and are now final. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.) As a result of these subsequent events, we dismiss the 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.) A question becomes moot when, during the pendency of an appeal, events transpire that prevent a court from granting any effectual relief. (See Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 566; see also Consol. etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 863.) In such cases, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal. (Consol. etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers, supra, at p. 863; see also Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479 [“[a]n appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief”].)