Opinion
F085166
07-18-2023
In re S.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. ROBERT G., Defendant and Appellant. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Robert G., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Ashley N. McGuire, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County Nos. 22CEJ300172-1, 22CEJ300172-2 &22CEJ300172-3. Elizabeth Egan, Judge.
Robert G., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Ashley N. McGuire, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT[*]
Self-represented appellant Robert G. (Father) challenges the jurisdiction/disposition orders pertaining to his three children. We reject his contentions and affirm.
FACTS
Detention Report
On May 16, 2022, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (Department) received a referral alleging Father was neglecting his three children and preventing them from seeing Mother, who was their custodial parent.
Law enforcement responded to Father's residence. They observed the home was filthy and had no running water. Father refused to surrender the children and the SWAT team was activated. Father was arrested.
The children told law enforcement that Father was abusive, slapped them, and hit them with a belt. The children did not have bruises but were filthy, and it appeared they had not showered to change their clothes for days.
The three children told a social worker that Father cooks for them and washes their clothes. However, one of the children told their mother (Mother) that Father does not feed him.
All three of the children reported that Father smokes "herbs." One of the children, a third grader at a public elementary school, said she had not been to school since December. Another one of the children had rotting teeth. The children reported they had to wear shoes in the house because there are rats, rat feces, and salamanders on the floor.
The next day, on May 17, 2022, Father spoke with the social worker. Father acknowledged his place is a "dump," but said that he has a very busy lifestyle, is in the process of remodeling, and does not currently live at that location. Father said the sheriffs were "lying" and that there is running water at the property. Father said he spanks the children on their bottom with a belt and "lightly slap[s]" them without leaving a mark. Father said he does smoke marijuana but not in front of the children.
Father said his child's rotting teeth were Mother's fault because she does not let him take them to the dentist. Father said the children were scared of Mother and her boyfriends, one of whom kissed one of the children on the cheek. Father said he was trying to enroll the children at a different school because they did not want to be near their mother, but the principal of the new school would not let them transfer. Father said the sheriff's office was going to "receive a big lawsuit."
Dependency Proceedings
The next day, on May 18, 2022, the Department filed dependency petitions as to each of the three children. The petitions alleged that each of the children were as described in Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), due to the neglect and abuse of Father. The petitions further alleged that each of the children were as described in section 300, subdivision (b)(1) due to Mother's failure to protect the children from the circumstances created by Father.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
The next day, on March 19, 2022, the court ordered the children detained.
The Department filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on July 5, 2022. The report stated there was a custody order issued in a family law case providing that two of the children were to alternate weeks residing with each parent. The Department was unable to locate any updated child custody orders regarding the children.
This order was suspended pursuant to a temporary restraining order in January 10, 2019, but that temporary restraining order was terminated on February 13, 2019.
A statement of contested issues filed by Mother on September 27, 2022, claimed that additional custody orders were made on March 17, 2019. Under that order, the children were to stay with Mother on weekdays and with Father on weekends. Mother alleged father stopped complying with the order around December 24, 2021, and refused to return the children to Mother after a visit. However, we have been unable to locate the March 2019 custody order in the record.
Father's visits with the children were going well.
Father reported he stopped smoking marijuana on June 15, 2022, but was still testing positive for THC on June 16, 2022, and June 26, 2022.
On September 29, 2022, the court granted Father's request to represent himself. On the same day, Mother and the Department reached a settlement agreement whereby the Department would recommend family maintenance services, instead of family reunification services, for mother.
A combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on October 20, 2022. Father stated he was present as a "formality." He said he was no longer a U.S. citizen and instead was a "state national." He contended the dependency court had "no jurisdiction" over him or his children. Father later continued, "So you have no authority over me any longer. I have diplomatic immunity. I am a non-resident alien of the United States. I am no longer a 14th Amendment slave. I am no longer a citizen. I am no longer under your corporate B.S."
Father said the court came up with lies to justify the detention of his children after-the-fact. Father said he was choosing not to participate in the hearing of "this kangaroo court."
A social worker testified Father was no longer participating in random drug testing or mental health services.
The court found there was insufficient evidence to support two of the subdivision (b) counts against Mother. The court found the remaining counts to be true.
When the court proceeded to the disposition portion of the hearing, it offered Father "another chance" to provide evidence or argument. Father responded, "For what? This is a charade." Father removed an article of clothing causing the court to say he was not in "appropriate attire for the courtroom." Father eventually replaced the article of clothing, and the court proceeded to rule on disposition.
The court ordered the children removed from Father's custody and placed them with Mother. Father was granted enhancement services.
Father appeals from the jurisdiction/disposition orders.
DISCUSSION
Law
If a parent denies the allegations of a dependency petition, the court must hold a contested jurisdiction hearing to determine whether the allegations in the petition are true by a preponderance of the evidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.684(a), (e).) The court may then hold a disposition hearing after which it may declare dependency and remove physical custody from the parent, among other options. (Id., rule 5.695(a).)
Appellate courts review jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11, 22.)
I. Forcible Detention/Imprisonment was not Basis for Jurisdiction, Father's Contentions Thereon are Immaterial
Father first argues that he was accused of forcibly detaining his children when, in fact, he was protecting his children. We take this to be a challenge to the court's sustaining of the dependency petition. However, forcible detention or imprisonment of the children was not the basis for the counts sustained by the dependency court at the jurisdictional hearing. Rather, the counts found true pertained to physical punishment (count a-1), Mother's failure to protect from Father's physical punishment, substance abuse, and unsanitary living conditions (count b-1), and Father's substance abuse (count b-2).
Father's relitigating of custody issues is immaterial to an appellate challenge to the dependency court's jurisdictional/dispositional orders.
II. Father Has Not Established Reversible Error with Respect to the Allegations He Used Improper Physical Discipline
In his discussion of the issue described above, Father also briefly claims that the accusation he used a belt to spank the children was an "outright fabricated lie." He does not cite to the record and instead says the judgment must be reversed because "the truth will come out." However, we are a court of review and cannot reverse a judgment on the grounds that an appellant's presently unsubstantiated claims may be proven at a later time.
Because it has not been raised, we do not address whether the physical discipline alleged against Father was sufficient to qualify as severe physical abuse or otherwise provide grounds for dependency jurisdiction.
III. Father Has Not Established the Dependency Court Lacked Jurisdiction
In an apparent challenge to the dependency court's jurisdiction, Father's second issue is largely a string of citations regarding the rights of state citizens. The only actual argument he makes specific to this case is that the dependency court asserted jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), rather than "alleged or a potential of physical harm." But, in fact, those subdivisions do encompass the potential of physical harm. Moreover, the petition itself alleged actual physical harm.
Father also claims, without citation to the record, that he was merely protecting the children from Mother, the sheriff's office, and "CPS." However, this claim does not negate any of the bases upon which the court took jurisdiction.
Finally, Father raises a variety of unusual claims in his reply brief, which we decline to address. (See Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186, fn. 2.)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
[*] Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.