Opinion
B307989
06-21-2021
In re L.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK D., Defendant and Appellant.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephanie Jo Reagan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 20CCJP00548A, Rashida A. Adams, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephanie Jo Reagan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
LUI, P. J.
The juvenile court sustained a dependency petition against R.G. (Mother) and M.D. (Father). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) Mother did not appeal, which confers jurisdiction over 17-year-old L.D. We do not reach the merits of Father's appeal because (1) he does not challenge the disposition giving him primary custody of L.D.; (2) there is no potential future dependency court impact on Father because L.D. will soon reach adulthood; and (3) the jurisdictional finding against Father has no practical or legal consequences. We dismiss the appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1998, a petition was sustained against Mother with respect to her daughter B.G. (L.D.'s half sibling). Mother had substance abuse and mental problems and was unable to care for B.G., who did not attend school regularly and was exposed to domestic violence between Mother and Father. Mother did not reunify with B.G.
Born in 2004, L.D. was detained when both parents were incarcerated in 2006. A sustained petition alleged that Mother endangered L.D. by keeping drugs and paraphernalia within L.D.'s access. Father and Mother participated in drug testing, domestic violence counseling, and therapy. The case ended in 2007. The 2006-2007 case was followed by a decade of child abuse reports, including substantiated reports of Father's emotional abuse of L.D. (2010) and physical abuse of L.D. (2017).
In 2019 and 2020, respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received reports that Mother smokes methamphetamine at her home while L.D. is there. A case worker (CSW) went to the home. A woman purporting to be L.D.'s maternal aunt gave CSW a tour and spoke well of Mother. CSW later learned that the “aunt” was in fact Mother, who apologized for deceiving CSW about her identity. Mother's boyfriend Wesley M., who has an extensive drug history, was at her home with L.D.
L.D. said he prefers living with Mother because Father is “stressing me out” and refuses to enroll him in school. L.D. acknowledged that his parents create a “chaotic” life for him. Father told CSW he allows L.D. to live with Mother so long as she tests for drugs, despite a 2013 family court order giving Father sole physical and legal custody of L.D. and monitored visits to Mother. Later, Father denied allowing L.D. to live with Mother and accused her of “kidnapping” him. Father is aware that Wesley M. smokes and sells crack cocaine and threatened to kill Mother and Father. Father failed to take L.D.'s asthma medication to him.
Father's hoarder-like home reeked of urine. L.D. shared a bedroom with Father, who withheld L.D.'s sign-in information for on-line schooling from him. L.D. refused to return to Father and referred to him as a “tumor.” Both parents have extensive felony histories and a history of domestic violence and drug abuse. Father tested negative for drugs when L.D. was detained; Mother failed to show up for drug tests. Though she claimed 18 years of sobriety, she was more recently arrested on drug charges. DCFS deemed L.D. to be at “high” risk of abuse.
DCFS filed a dependency petition. As amended, it alleges that Mother and Father medically neglected L.D. by failing to ensure that he has asthma medication; deprived him of an education; have a history of substance abuse; Mother refuses to drug test and may have relapsed; Mother left L.D. with the maternal grandmother (MGM) and never returned; she did not communicate with DCFS; Father failed to protect L.D. by allowing him to live with Mother despite knowing she is a substance abuser. The court found a prima facie case but left L.D. in parental care under DCFS supervision.
The jurisdiction report stated that Mother claims sobriety since L.D. was born and that Father gave permission for L.D. to live with her. She offered excuses why she will not test for drugs and accused Father of recently using methamphetamine, right in front of her. B.G. also said that Father uses drugs and called him “a sociopath.”
Father accused Mother and her family of being drug addicts, noting that if Mother has nothing to hide, she would be willing to drug test. He said he is sober. L.D. said he never saw Mother or other family members abuse drugs or be under the influence. He is happy, felt safe with Mother, and did not wish to see or speak to Father. L.D. rarely attended school and failed his classes. Mother made a desultory effort to enroll him in an on-line learning program but did not complete the enrollment process.
The family is ineligible for voluntary services from DCFS because the parents are uncooperative and use L.D. as a pawn in their long custody battle. Father allows L.D. to stay with Mother despite accusing her of drug abuse; Mother allows L.D. to stay with Father despite accusing him of drug abuse. Both parents failed to protect L.D., who is negatively impacted by excessive absenteeism from school. Father claimed that L.D. did not want to attend school because he is so far behind other students that he feels uncomfortable.
In March 2020, DCFS reported that L.D. was living with Father. Mother had abandoned L.D. with MGM, who was ill and unable to care for L.D., who sat home playing video games instead of attending school. MGM said L.D. asked to live with her because he “was tired of his mother getting high and all the fighting and drama.” MGM opined that Mother was using “meth.” For years, Mother stole MGM's pain medication. Father continued to believe that Mother abuses drugs. Her whereabouts were unknown.
The jurisdiction hearing was delayed by the pandemic. In August 2020, DCFS reported that Mother has vanished. L.D. lived with Father, who did not enroll L.D. in public or on-line school after making empty promises to do so. L.D. missed an unlawful amount of school. An assessment by the Department of State Hospitals concluded that L.D. needed therapy. Father did not enroll L.D. in therapy, saying he did not trust the DCFS referral. L.D. was disheveled and overweight. He told CSW that he wished to be in school and hopes to become an engineer.
The petition was adjudicated on August 12, 2020. The court found that Mother's absence was unexplained. Father asked to be dismissed from the petition. L.D. asked the court to dismiss the case because he is not at risk of harm.
The court sustained three counts: (1) Mother has a history of substance abuse and criminality. She failed to appear for on-demand drug tests. Father and MGM state that Mother has relapsed into drug abuse, which poses a risk of serious harm to L.D.; (2) Mother made an inappropriate plan for L.D.'s care by leaving him with MGM, who cannot take care of him. Her conduct endangers L.D.'s health and safety; (3) though Father knew or should have known Mother was abusing substances, he did not enforce the family court order and allowed L.D. to reside with Mother. Mother's unlimited access to L.D. placed him at risk of serious harm. The remaining counts were dismissed.
At disposition, the court declared L.D. a dependent. It left him in parental custody under DCFS supervision. Father has primary custody. The parents must ensure that L.D. attends all medical, dental, and mental health appointments and is enrolled in school. Mother was ordered to appear for random drug tests and participate in a drug rehabilitation program if any test is missed or dirty. Mother and Father must attend mental health counseling and participate in individual counseling to address case issues and conjoint counseling to address co-parenting or a high-conflict parenting program. Father must drug test “on suspicion” that he is using drugs.
DISCUSSION
Dependency jurisdiction exists regardless of the merits of Father's appeal. A child “ ‘is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [him] within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent.' ” (In re X.S. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161.) “Because the juvenile court assumes jurisdiction of the child, not the parents, jurisdiction may exist based on the conduct of one parent only.” (In re J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 3.) The court sustained the petition based on the conduct of both parents. Mother did not appeal; thus, the court has jurisdiction over L.D. and we may decline to address the evidence supporting the finding against Father. (Id. at pp. 3-4.)
In his brief, Father concedes that “the allegations against Mother were factually supported. Given Mother's lengthy history of substance abuse, it was reasonable for the juvenile court to find that [her] inappropriate plan [for L.D.'s care and supervision] and her failure to drug test... was sufficient evidence of a relapse.” Nonetheless, he argues that the findings against Mother must be reversed.
“ ‘ “[A]n appellant cannot urge errors which affect only another party who does not appeal.”' ” (In re Jasmine J. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1802, 1806.) Mother abandoned L.D. and vanished before adjudication. She did not appeal. “A parent cannot raise issues on appeal which do not affect his or her own rights.” (In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541.) Father's personal rights are not injuriously affected by findings against Mother because the court gave him custody of L.D. (Cf. In re Silvia R. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 337, 344-345 [mother had standing to appeal a disposition directed at the child's non-appealing stepfather and brother because mother was aggrieved when the child was removed from her custody and she lost the right to parent her daughter].)
Father challenges the finding that he allowed L.D. to live with Mother-despite knowing that she abuses drugs-and did not enforce the family court's order requiring that Mother's contacts with L.D. be monitored. We conclude that there is no reason to review this finding.
When dependency jurisdiction exists because an offending parent has not appealed, we “reach the merits of a challenge to any jurisdictional finding when the finding (1) serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal [citation]; (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings [citations]; or (3) ‘could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction.' ” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.)
None of the factors listed above apply here. Father does not challenge the disposition, which left L.D. in Father's custody. There is no potential future impact on Father because L.D. is over 17 years old and will soon leave the dependency system. There is no purpose in discussing the finding against Father when he “has not suggested a single specific legal or practical consequence from this finding.” (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1493 [dismissing a father's appeal after the child's mother did not appeal drug abuse findings against her].) Accordingly, we shall not conduct a discretionary review of the finding against Father. (Id. at p. 1495.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.