Opinion
B326790
05-07-2024
Guardianship of NOAH M., Minor. v. HILLARY M., Objector and Appellant. LaTOYA P., Petitioner and Respondent,
Hillary M., in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant. No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 22STPB06826 Michael C. Small, Judge. Dismissed.
Hillary M., in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.
No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent.
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
On November 30, 2022, the trial court extended LaToya P.'s (LaToya) temporary guardianship of Noah M. (Noah) by approximately two months. Noah's biological mother, Hillary M. (Hillary), appeals from the court's order. Because the order is nonappealable, we dismiss the appeal.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90, we refer to the parties by their first names and last initials. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(1), (11).) No disrespect is intended.
BACKGROUND
First Petition for Temporary Guardianship
On July 12, 2022, LaToya filed a petition for temporary guardianship of Noah. The trial court denied the petition without prejudice on July 21, 2022, based on insufficient evidence.
Second Petition for Temporary Guardianship
LaToya filed a second petition seeking temporary guardianship of Noah on September 8, 2022. LaToya identified herself as Noah's godmother and stated that she had a letter from Hillary giving her authority to care for the child. LaToya stated that she had been caring for Noah for three years and did not know where his mother was.
September 20, 2022, Hearing
The trial court held a hearing on the second petition for temporary guardianship on September 20, 2022. Now finding sufficient evidence, the court granted the petition and appointed LaToya as Noah's temporary guardian until November 30, 2022. And, finding good cause, "the [c]ourt dispense[d] with notice to any un-noticed parties"-specifically "Mother and Father[.]"
Although the minute order indicates the presence of a court reporter, no reporter's transcript from the September 20, 2022, hearing appears in the appellate record.
November 30, 2022, Hearing
On November 30, 2022, the trial court held another hearing, attended by both LaToya and Hillary. The court found "that additional evidence by supplemental declaration or additional documentation [was] required" and, thus, continued the hearing until January 31, 2023. The court nevertheless signed an order extending LaToya's temporary guardianship of Noah to January 31, 2023, and authorizing the issuance of new letters of temporary guardianship valid until that date.
The minute order indicates that the parties stipulated to proceed without the services of a court reporter.
The trial court further ordered Hillary to file and serve written objections to LaToya's petition for guardianship by January 20, 2023. The court also authorized Hillary to file and serve a petition for visitation by January 10, 2023, to be heard on January 31, 2023. The court appointed counsel for Noah and ordered the probate court investigator to prepare a report by the next hearing date regarding LaToya, Hillary, Noah, and "DCFS history in this case ...."
On November 30, 2022, Hillary filed a declaration seeking to dismiss LaToya's guardianship petition. It is unclear from the record whether the declaration was submitted before or after the November 30, 2022, hearing took place.
Appeal
Hillary filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order entered on November 30, 2022.
DISCUSSION
"The fundamental rule governing the appealability of orders is that '"a judgment or order is not appealable unless expressly made so by statute." [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (In re Mario C. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307.) An appeal may be taken from an order made appealable under the Probate Code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1 (a)(10).) Probate Code section 1301, subdivision (a), provides that an order "[g]ranting or revoking of letters of guardianship . . ., except letters of temporary guardianship[,]" is appealable. (Italics added.) Given this express exception, the temporary guardianship order at issue here is not appealable. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and must dismiss it. (Sherman v. Standard Mines (1913) 166 Cal. 524, 525 ["An attempt to appeal from a nonappealable order does not give this court jurisdiction or authority to review it"]; In re Javier G. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1201 ["A reviewing court lacks jurisdiction to consider appeals from a nonappealable order, and has the duty to dismiss such appeals"].)
In March 2023, the clerk of this court notified Hillary that it appeared that the appeal had been taken from a nonappealable order and asked her to demonstrate why the appeal should not be dismissed. Her arguments in response are difficult to decipher but seem to focus on an alleged lack of notice of the temporary guardianship hearings. She also invokes the collateral order doctrine, which "allows an appeal to be taken '[w]hen a court renders an interlocutory order collateral to the main issue, dispositive of the rights of the parties in relation to the collateral matter, and directing payment of money or performance of an act.' [Citation.]" (Longobardo v. Avco Corp. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 429, 432.) But the extension of the letters of temporary guardianship is not collateral and none of Hillary's contentions addresses the fundamental problem that, by statute, the order appealed from is not appealable.
Furthermore, even if the order were appealable, we would find that the appeal should be dismissed as moot. By the express terms of the November 30, 2022, order, the temporary guardianship expired on January 31, 2023. Accordingly, we could no longer offer Hillary any practical relief regarding that order. (See Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 139, 144 ["If relief granted by the trial court is temporal, and if the relief granted expires before an appeal can be heard, then an appeal by the adverse party is moot"]; Simi Corp. v. Garamendi (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1503 ["A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical impact or cannot provide the parties with effective relief"].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
We concur:LUI, P. J., HOFFSTADT, J.