In re C.F. CA3

Filed 7/30/21 In re C.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----

In re C.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C092312 Law.

SUTTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Super. Ct. No. AND HUMAN SERVICES, DPSQ180000093)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The underlying dependency case giving rise to this appeal was filed in January 2018 on behalf of minor C. and his sibling, L., who were then 10 years of age. In this appeal, appellant, father of C. and L., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders establishing a legal guardianship for C. after reunification efforts with parents had failed. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Appellant does not challenge the establishment of

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

1

the guardianship in this appeal but, rather, complains of the lack of concurrent orders relating to visitation and the placement of C. in a home separate from his sibling. In light of subsequent developments in the underlying matter, we now dismiss this 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.) When subsequent events “ ‘render[] it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of [appellant], to grant . . . any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.’ ” (Consol. etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 863.) “Mootness” is an apt term to describe the reality of the situation before us. In his opening brief, appellant argues: (1) the juvenile court erred by failing “to revisit its previous orders denying any visitation between appellant and [C.]”; (2) the juvenile court erred by failing to issue explicit sibling visitation orders for the minor and L.; and (3) the Agency failed to justify continuing the minor and L. in separate placements and to establish it was making continuing efforts to resolve any conflicts between the siblings, as required by section 16002. During the pendency of this appeal, this court received copies of juvenile court orders following hearings on October 22 and November 17, 2020, which substantially affect the instant appeal. The record was augmented with the transcripts from these two hearings. These records establish, as appellant concedes, that the issues raised in appellant’s opening brief have been rendered moot. The augmented record clearly shows that counseling has been implemented to assist the minor and his sibling in addressing the issues that led them to being separated, that the siblings are progressing in resolving those