DISCUSSION

Andrea contends this appeal has not been rendered moot by the subsequent order

because an order authorizing the Agency to lift supervision requirements is not the same

as an order granting unsupervised visitation. She asserts the Agency will not interpret the

subsequent order as a directive to permit unsupervised visitation.

"An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the

occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant

effective relief. [Citation.]" (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054;

In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498.) When no effective relief can be

granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of

Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.)

After the juvenile court denied Andrea's request for an evidentiary hearing, she

filed another section 388 petition. The juvenile court granted an evidentiary hearing on

the second petition and resolved the matter in her favor. Andrea received all the relief

she now seeks on appeal―an evidentiary hearing on the extent of her visitation rights

with her children. A reversal of the May 2013 order denying an evidentiary hearing on

Andrea's earlier petition would be an idle act. In September, the juvenile court fashioned

a new visitation order based on the evidence it had before it at the hearing. Our decision

would not affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding; therefore, we cannot grant

effective relief. (In re Esperanza C., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1054; In re Anna S.,

supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1498.)

4

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

HALLER, J.

5