Opinion
A163115
03-15-2022
In re M.H. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. R.T., Defendant and Appellant. HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. JV2000120, JV2000121, JV2000122, JV2000142
MILLER, J.
In these dependency proceedings, R.T. (Mother) appeals from six-month review orders in which the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction as to her two younger children, S.T. and K.T., custody of whom was awarded to their father, and continued reunification services with respect to her two older children, M.H. and E.H., who remained in out-of-home placements. Mother appeals from these orders solely to preserve the challenges she raised in her previous appeal (A161819) from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders and the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Mother. After Mother filed her notices of appeal in this matter, we issued our opinion affirming the previous orders. (In re M.H. (Nov. 19, 2021, A161819) [nonpub. opn.] 2021 WL 5409869 (M.H.).) Because our opinion has been certified as final, and because Mother raises no other challenge to the orders at issue in the appeal now before us, we shall affirm.
After the respondent Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services submitted its brief arguing that this appeal should be dismissed, Mother's counsel submitted a letter stating that Mother would not file a reply brief or response to the request for dismissal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We take judicial notice of our previous opinion, which includes a summary of the underlying matter through the disposition hearing that was held in December 2020. (M.H., supra, 2021 WL 5409869.) Briefly, the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed petitions alleging that M.H., E.H., S.T, and K.T. (Minors) came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Minors were detained, and at the jurisdiction hearing the juvenile court sustained amended petitions, to which Mother had submitted after negotiation. At disposition, the juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem for Mother; declared Minors dependents of the court with their care, custody and control vested in the Department; and ordered reunification services for Mother. The court found that visitation between Mother and Minors would create a substantial risk of detriment, suspended visitation until Mother stabilized her behavior, and set a hearing date in January 2021 to consider changing the visitation order. (Ibid.)
We grant respondent's unopposed request that we take judicial notice of certain records of this court and the juvenile court.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. The superior court case numbers ending in 120, 121, 122, and 142 pertain to M.H., E.H., S.T., and K.T., respectively.
Mother appealed. In our opinion in M.H., issued on November 19, 2021, we concluded that the juvenile court erred in conducting the jurisdictional hearing and in its appointment of a guardian ad litem, but we affirmed the jurisdictional, dispositional, and appointment orders because Mother failed to show any prejudice from the errors. (M.H., supra, 2021 WL 5409869.) This opinion was not challenged and is now final.
While Mother's previous appeal was pending, proceedings continued in the juvenile court. At interim review hearings in January 2021, the court ordered the placement of the two youngest children, S.T. and K.T., with their father, J.M., with family maintenance services. Reunification services to Mother continued, although the Department reported that Mother "continues to struggle with engaging in services to address why the Department became involved with her family." Visitation between Mother and Minors remained suspended, but could be modified with three days' notice to counsel.
Pursuant to a March 2021 stipulation, the juvenile court ordered that supervised visits between Mother, S.T., and K.T. (but not between Mother, M.H., and E.H.) could recommence as early as April 2, 2021. But in late May, the Department filed a section 388 petition asking the court to reinstate its prior detriment order with respect to S.T. and K.T., contending that Mother's mental health had deteriorated and her behavior during visits had not been appropriate or safe for the children. In June, the court made temporary findings of detriment concerning Mother's visits and scheduled the section 388 petition to be heard with the six-month review hearing in July.
In reports prepared for the six-month review hearing, the Department recommended that six more months of family reunification services be offered to Mother with respect to M.H. and E.H. The Department recommended terminating the dependency as to S.T. and K.T. with sole physical and legal custody given to their father.
At the review hearing, held on July 21, 2021, the court found that returning any of the children to Mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being; that reasonable services had been provided and offered to Mother; and that Mother had not complied with her case plan. The court determined that continued reunification services with respect to M.H. and E.H. (then ages 16 and 12) was appropriate, and they remained dependents of the court in out-of-home placements. For S.T. and K.T. (then ages 2 and 1), the court terminated reunification services to mother, ordered termination of the dependency, and granted their father sole custody. The court found that visitation with Mother, without her receiving mental health services, would be detrimental to the children, and ordered no visitation, and dismissed the Department's section 388 petition as moot.
Mother timely appealed from the July 2021 orders. We issued our opinion in Mother's previous appeal the same day Mother filed her opening brief in this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mother's only argument is that this appeal is necessary to preserve her rights as to the arguments raised in her prior appeal concerning the jurisdictional hearing and the appointment of the guardian ad litem. She does not challenge any of the specific findings and orders made by the juvenile court at the July 2021 hearing, but asks us to reverse the orders because the jurisdictional findings and appointment of a guardian ad litem violated her due process rights and "infected" all further hearings, including the proceedings at issue in this appeal.
The heading in the argument section of Mother's opening brief on appeal makes this clear: "This appeal from the juvenile court's section 364 and six-month review hearing is an appropriate means of preserving judicial authority to grant the relief requested in mother's first appeal that is currently pending before this Court."
Since Mother filed her notices of appeal in this matter, we have affirmed the orders that Mother challenged in her previous appeal, and our decision in that previous appeal is final. (M.H., supra, 2021 WL 5409869.) As a result, there is nothing for Mother to preserve with respect to the arguments she raised in the previous appeal, and her argument is moot. Notably, although Mother contends in this appeal that the jurisdictional findings and appointment of a guardian ad litem "infected" the proceedings that gave rise to the July 21 orders, she offers no argument or authority to show, for example, that the appointment of a guardian ad litem worked to her disadvantage in the July 2021 review hearing. By failing to raise any issues other than the preservation of the issues from her previous appeal, Mother has forfeited any other arguments she might have made to challenge the juvenile court's orders. (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 [issues not argued are deemed waived].) Accordingly, we shall affirm.
DISPOSITION
The challenged orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Richman, Acting P.J., Mayfield, J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Mendocino County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.