In re Brook F. CA1/5

Filed 3/5/21 In re Brook F. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 BROOK F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160630 & A160926 v. (Alameda County MADDEX B., Super. Ct. No. JD03036101) Defendant and Appellant.

Maddex B. (Father) appeals from two juvenile court orders relating to visitation in this dependency proceeding regarding his daughter Brook F. (Minor).1 In particular, appeal case number A160630 challenges the court’s June 16, 2020 order withdrawing the Alameda County Social Services

1On the court’s own motion, we consolidate the appeals in case numbers A160630 and A160926 for purposes of decision. (Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 481.) This court previously issued a decision with respect to Father’s appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (See In re Brooke F. (Jan. 17, 2020, A157203) [nonpub. opn.].) We note that Father subsequently informed the juvenile court the Minor’s name was misspelled in the petition and it should be spelled “Brook.”

1

Agency’s (Agency) discretion to resume visits with Father. And appeal case number A160926 challenges the court’s September 10 order denying the Agency’s request for Minor to have a two-week trial visit in Father’s home. On December 24, 2020, this court granted the Agency’s motion to augment the record in both appeals. The augmentation consisted of a minute order reflecting that, on December 2, the juvenile court found that Father had made substantial progress toward alleviating the causes requiring out-of- home placement, that returning Minor to Father’s custody would not create substantial risk of detriment, and that reunification of Minor with Father was the appropriate permanent plan. The court ordered Minor placed in Father’s care “effective immediately,” with the condition that they were “to remain in the relative paternal grandparent’s home.” The court directed the Agency to provide family maintenance services and stated, “At the next dependency status review hearing, the Court will determine the extent of compliance with the case plan as an important factor in deciding whether it would be detrimental to dismiss juvenile court jurisdiction.” The court scheduled a report and review hearing for May 18, 2021. In its briefing on appeal, the Agency contends that, in light of the December 2, 2020 order, Father’s challenges to the June and September orders relating to visitation are moot. “As a general rule, it is a court’s duty 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 matter in issue in the case before it.’ ” ’ [Citation.] An appellate court will dismiss an appeal when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief. [Citation.] Still, a court may exercise its inherent discretion to resolve an issue when there remain ‘material questions for the court’s