Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 15-0430
06-14-2016
SUMMER P., Appellant, v. SHIRLEY M., THOMAS M., K.H., Appellees.
COUNSEL Law Office of Ed Johnson PLLC, Peoria By Edward D. Johnson Counsel for Appellant Law Office of Margo A. Shorr, Phoenix By Margo A. Shorr Counsel for Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JG7312
The Honorable James P. Beene, Judge
APPEAL DISMISSED
COUNSEL
Law Office of Ed Johnson PLLC, Peoria
By Edward D. Johnson
Counsel for Appellant
Law Office of Margo A. Shorr, Phoenix
By Margo A. Shorr
Counsel for Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.
PORTLEY, Judge:
¶1 Summer P. ("Mother") appeals the juvenile court's ruling denying her petition for termination of guardianship of a minor. Because this appeal has been mooted by the severance of Mother's parental rights, which we affirmed in Summer P. v. Shirley M., 1 CA-JV 15-0421 (Ariz. App. June 9, 2016) (mem. decision), we dismiss her appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Shirley and Thomas M. were appointed as co-guardians of K.H. in 2009. In February 2014, after dependency proceedings in which they were given physical custody of Mother's two other minor children, they filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to K.H. A month later, while all three children were in Shirley and Thomas M.'s custody, Mother filed a petition to terminate the guardianship, alleging the circumstances had changed and she was in a position to provide proper and effective care for K.H. After a concurrent guardianship and severance hearing, the court denied Mother's petition to terminate the guardianship of K.H., and severed her parental rights to K.H. Mother timely appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶3 Our threshold inquiry is whether Mother's appeal was mooted by the termination of her parental rights. We find that it was.
¶4 As a policy of judicial restraint, we do not address moot questions. Lana A. v. Woodburn, 211 Ariz. 62, 65, ¶ 9, 116 P.3d 1222, 1225 (App. 2005) (citation omitted). "A case becomes moot when an event occurs which would cause the outcome of the appeal to have no practical effect on the parties." Sedona Private Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126, 127, ¶ 5, 961 P.2d 1074, 1075 (App. 1998) (citation omitted).
¶5 Even assuming the guardianship was based on Mother's consent and the court was required to terminate the guardianship when Mother withdrew her consent, see In re Guardianship of Mikrut, 175 Ariz. 544,
547, 858 P.2d 689, 692 (App. 1993), the issue is moot because the court entered a concurrent order severing mother's parental rights to K.H. Nor does this case present a novel legal issue or a matter that is "capable of repetition yet evading review." Lana A., 211 Ariz. at 65, ¶ 9, 116 P.3d at 1225 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982); Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal Cty., 235 Ariz. 189, 193, ¶ 10, 330 P.3d 379, 383 (App. 2014).
CONCLUSION
¶6 Because Mother's parental rights to K.H. have been severed, and that decision has been affirmed on appeal, a decision relating to the termination of guardianship would have no impact on these parties. Consequently, we dismiss her appeal as moot.