Opinion
A156434
01-17-2020
In re O.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.S. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JD02910601)
J.S. (mother) and presumed father M.S. (father, collectively parents) appeal the denial of their motion to compel Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) to provide them with discovery at no cost.
We dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We incorporate by reference our unpublished opinion affirming the termination of parental rights, In re O.S. (Dec. 17, 2019, A157417). Mother requested judicial notice of appellate records in four cases involving this issue. Other than record materials in In re William M.W., (Dec. 17, 2019, A156489) ___Cal.App.5th___ , which the juvenile court incorporated by reference, we deny the request as unnecessary to our decision. We granted permission of California Juvenile Court Advocates to file an amicus curiae brief supporting parents.
Parents' child was born prematurely, exhibiting symptoms of drug withdrawal, and the Agency filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition. The court detained the child, sustained the allegations in the operative second amended petition, removed the child from parental custody, and ordered reunification services. At the six-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.
Parents moved to compel the Agency to produce 22 categories of documents at no cost pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 5.546, which governs prehearing discovery in dependency proceedings. Parents requested the Agency fax the documents, provide them on a USB flash drive, or print them. In opposition, the Agency argued it had satisfied its discovery obligations by making the documents available for inspection and copying at a rate of ten cents per page.
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
At a hearing, parents argued they were entitled to discovery "free of cost" because they were indigent; they claimed the Agency's refusal to provide discovery without charge violated their rights to due process and equal protection. The court denied the motion to the extent it requested production of discovery at no cost. According to the court, making such an order would be an act "in excess of its jurisdiction."
DISCUSSION
Parents and amicus curiae contend the Agency's refusal to provide discovery at no cost violates rule 5.546 and parents' due process and equal protection rights. Our colleagues recently addressed these arguments in In re William M.W., supra, ___Cal.App.5th___ . There, Division One held the Agency's discovery policy—identical to the one at issue here—did not violate rule 5.546, nor principles of due process or equal protection. The court also concluded, however, that the juvenile court had "discretion to issue an order which sets the time, place, and manner of discovery without violating separation of powers principles or improperly gifting public funds" and that the juvenile court mistakenly "determined it had no such authority." (In re William M.W., at p. *1.) Our colleagues remanded for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion in the first instance, while noting "dependency proceedings . . . have continued in the juvenile court" during the pendency of the appeal, and that current circumstances might "make any further consideration of this discovery matter unnecessary." (Id. at p. *11.)
We ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether this appeal is moot in light of our opinion affirming the termination of parental rights and Division One's decision in In re William M.W. Having reviewed that supplemental briefing, we conclude the appeal is moot and must be dismissed.
"As a general rule, ' " 'the duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is 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.] Thus, an ' "action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events." ' " (People v. Pipkin (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1149-1150.) "An important requirement for justiciability is the availability of 'effective' relief—that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status." (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490.)
Parents acknowledge our prior opinion has mooted this appeal. They are correct. Even if we assume for the sake of argument parents' and amicus curiae's positions are meritorious, we cannot grant effective relief because parental rights have been terminated and that order is final. (In re Carrie M. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 530, 533-534; see also rules 8.264(b), 8.470 [finality of opinions in dependency appeals].) "When the court cannot grant effective relief to the parties to an appeal, the appeal must be dismissed." (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1490; In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1316-1317 [termination of parental rights mooted challenge to earlier dependency ruling].)
We have discretion to resolve appeals that are "technically moot if they present important questions affecting the public interest that are capable of repetition yet evade review." (In re J.P. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 616, 623.) The issue presented in this appeal has not evaded review: Division One published an opinion addressing the validity of the Agency's discovery policy and the discretion the juvenile court possesses to manage discovery in dependency proceedings. (Cf. In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 [addressing merits of moot appeal were there was no "appellate opinion reviewing this issue"]; In re David B. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 633, 654 [appellate courts should resolve moot appeals "only if a ruling on the merits will affect future proceedings between the parties or will have some precedential consequence in future litigation"].)
Dismissing this appeal will not, as parents contend, result in the affirmance of a "clearly erroneous order" because Division One held "no court rule, statute, or constitutional principle requires the discovery order sought by parents." (In re William M.W., supra, ___Cal.App.5th at p. ___ [2019 WL 6873131 at p. *1].) No other exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Jones, P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Needham, J. /s/_________
Burns, J.