pointing out that taking evidence on appeal in juvenile dependency cases does not pose the usual problems as in other cases
How later courts described this case
- pointing out that taking evidence on appeal in juvenile dependency cases does not pose the usual problems as in other cases
- noting that the record did not disclose the reason for the postjudgment failure of the adoptive placement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion
THE COURT. * — (1)
Appellant, Sandra K., appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to Civil Code section 232, subdivision (a)(7), which terminated her custody and control over her daughter Elise.
While the appeal was pending in the Court of Appeal, Elise’s adoptive placement had to be terminated, and she was returned to foster care. It is now conceded by both parties to the appeal that Elise is no longer adoptable due to her age. The parties sought to bring evidence of these postjudgment circumstances to the attention of the Court of Appeal. However, that court declined to give weight to the evidence.
Subsequently, this court granted appellant’s petition for hearing to determine whether evidence of such postjudgment changes of circumstances may be considered by an appellate court. The parties have now offered a stipulation, requesting that the judgment herein be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings “in light of subsequent material evidence concerning the adoptability of the subject minor.”
This court has determined that it is appropriate to accept that stipulation. Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court in this case is reversed.
Before Bird, C. J., Mosk, J., Richardson, J., Broussard, J., Reynoso, J., Carr, J.,t and Sparks, J. †