Opinion
B328111 B328486
03-07-2024
In re JAYSON W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. ASHLEY W., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP06321A)
THE COURT:
Ashley W. (mother) appeals the juvenile court's orders denying her petitions for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and terminating her parental rights under section 366.26, over her three-year-old son, Jayson. We dismiss the appeal pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.) and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sade C.).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We draw many of these facts from our prior opinion issued on November 3, 2022-wherein mother appealed from the juvenile court's assertion of dependency jurisdiction. (In re Jayson W. (Nov. 3, 2022, B314711) [nonpub. opn.].)
I. Assertion of Dependency Jurisdiction
Mother elected to give birth to Jayson (born August 2020) in the back seat of her car because she did not trust doctors. After having been hospitalized due to severe hemorrhaging following the birth, mother tried to sneak out of the hospital with the newborn. Later that same month, mother and Jonathen D. (father)-who had a history of domestic violence-were having a verbal argument while riding on light-rail mass transit. As mother became increasingly upset, she "forcefully handed" three-week-old Jayson to father, and then proceeded to slap father repeatedly while he held Jayson.
In fall 2020, the juvenile court exerted dependency jurisdiction over Jayson pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), on the grounds that mother and father (1) "have a history of domestic violence" (which included the light-rail incident), and (2) have "neglected the infant's basic needs" by intentionally giving birth to the baby in the car and not sufficiently hydrating the baby during his first month of life.
The petition to exert dependency jurisdiction over Jayson was initially filed in Santa Clara County, but was transferred to the juvenile court in Los Angeles County when mother and Jayson moved there.
The court also sustained the allegations that (1) mother had been arrested and father was "unable to care for" Jayson, and (2) father had "ongoing and untreated mental health issues."
Shortly thereafter, mother became increasingly abusive towards her parents (maternal grandparents). Her behavior escalated from cursing at them in person and in text messages, to physical violence when she hit their car with her hand as they were driving away-and may have thrown objects-all while she was holding Jayson. Mother violated the juvenile court's order not to leave Southern California, and the social workers assigned to mother observed she was like a "zombie," "zone[d] out," had an "unusual[ly] flat affect," would take "irregular long pauses" during conversation, and "frequently made contradictory statements" and appeared "slightly paranoid."
In July 2021, as a result of mother's irrational behavior, the juvenile court sustained allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), contained in a supplemental petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)-namely, that mother (1) "engaged in violent and assaultive behavior" (with the maternal grandparents), and (2) "has a history of unresolved mental and emotional problems" that "render[ her] unable to provide regular care for" Jayson. The juvenile court removed Jayson from mother's custody, initially placed him with the maternal grandparents, but subsequently placed him with maternal cousins who lived in Kern County.
II. Reunification Period
By February 2022, Jayson had a "strong bond" with his maternal cousins in Kern County. Mother voluntarily left her residence in Los Angeles; moved to Santa Clara County and became homeless; refused to accept telephone calls from the Department's social worker; and demanded that the Department supply her with an apartment, buy her a car, and buy her a laptop computer.
A. Six-month status review
At the six-month status review hearing held on February 28, 2022, the court found that the Department had made "reasonable and/or active efforts to provide or offer reasonable [reunification] services" to mother, but that mother was "not in substantial compliance" with her case plan because (1) in her parenting classes she had not made progress in making changes necessary to ensure Jayson's safety, and during visits did not "engage" appropriately with Jayson, e.g., she often "play[ed] rap music with inappropriate lyrics"; (2) the psychologist who conducted mother's assessment observed "several" peculiarities in mother's "behavior[]" that did not qualify as "autism spectrum disorder" but gave "a diagnostic impression of [a]djustment [d]isorder" and indicated a "possible neurodevelopmental disorder"; (3) mother continued to believe that she did not need therapy, claimed she could not find a licensed therapist in Santa
Clara County, and attended 20 sessions with a therapist trainee only because the court ordered her to do so; and (4) while mother regularly attended the monitored video visits with Jayson, the monitors reported that the "quality" of the visits was "poor" because mother "struggles with engaging [Jayson]," "appears unaware of child development norms, and often spends much of the visit[s] watching Jayson silently," and mother's "reaction" to Jayson's "social cues or needs" was "non-existent."
The court declined to return Jayson to mother's custody and denied mother's request to transfer the case back to Santa Clara County, but elected to grant mother another six months of reunification services.
Mother challenged the rulings from the six-month status review hearing. We affirmed in an unpublished opinion. (In re Jayson W. (Jan. 12, 2023, B319944) [nonpub. opn.].)
B. Mother's first section 388 petition
On August 1, 2022, mother filed a section 388 petition asking the court to (1) return Jayson to her custody, and (2) transfer the case to Santa Clara County.
C. Twelve-month status review
Approximately six weeks prior to the 12-month status review hearing, Jayson was transferred to the custody of the maternal grandparents, who by that time were living in Ventura County. Mother told the therapist trainee she had been seeing that she was "done with therapy" and "no longer want[ed] to participate," and told the Department that she did not think any parent-child interaction therapy was necessary. At the hearing held on August 24, 2022, the court found that the Department had made "reasonable efforts" with regard to mother's case plan and had "d[one] what they could" in light of mother's residence in another county but found that mother was "not in substantial compliance with [her] case plan," and terminated reunification services.
Mother filed a writ petition with this court challenging the trial court's findings. We denied the writ in January 2023 after issuing an opinion that considered mother's arguments on their merits. (Ashley W. v. Superior Court (Jan. 12, 2023, B323250) [nonpub. opn.].)
The court also denied mother's section 388 petition on the grounds that there was "[n]o change of circumstances" and that placing Jayson back in mother's custody and transferring the case to Santa Clara was "[n]ot in the best interest of the child based on the evidence presented."
D. Mother's second section 388 petition
On December 12, 2022, mother filed a second section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to (1) return Jayson to her in Santa Clara County, (2) provide housing assistance, and (3) provide an award of additional financial assistance to compensate her "for all trauma [Jayson] is accruing."
The juvenile held a contested hearing on January 27, 2023. Mother addressed the court and stated that "the whole situation was created by [her] parents" and that she had "complied [with her] case plan." The court noted that transportation costs were being provided to mother and she needed to work out a plan for telephonic, virtual, or in-person visits in Los Angeles. The court denied the petition, stating there were no changed circumstances, and it was not in Jayson's best interests to grant mother's requests.
E. Requests on behalf of Jayson
On February 6, 2023, following a contested hearing, the court granted Jayson's counsel's request for a stay-away order, ordering mother not to use social media to identify the caregivers, and to stay away from them. A few weeks later, Jayson's counsel filed a section 388 petition asking the court to terminate mother's in-person visits because mother violated the February 6, 2023 order by posting the caregivers' information on social media and allegedly threatening to kidnap Jayson.
F. Mother's third and fourth section 388 petitions
On February 15, 2023, mother filed a third section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to make Jayson available for an in-person visit in a location that would permit her to take him home after the visit.
The following day, February 16, 2023, mother filed another section 388 petition asking the court to (1) continue to let her see Jayson and eventually return him to her, (2) find overnight shelter for her in Los Angeles, and (3) pay "in full" her transportation costs.
On April 10, 2023, the juvenile held a contested hearing on mother's two pending section 388 petitions. Following argument and having considered the evidence presented, the court denied both of mother's section 388 petitions, stating there was no change in circumstances and it was not in Jayson's best interests to grant mother's requests.
III. Permanency Planning Hearing
The court also held the permanency planning hearing on April 10, 2023. Mother argued that the beneficial parent-child exception to termination applied because she maintained regular visitation with Jayson; had a positive emotional attachment to him; that Jayson would benefit from continuing the relationship; and it would be detrimental to Jayson to terminate that relationship.
The court found that mother had not maintained regular visitation and had not established a bond with the child. The court pointed out that since the Department got involved, Jayson had five different placements but had never been returned to mother, and her move back to Santa Clara County of her own accord resulted in "what visits there ha[d] been" becoming "predominantly virtual." The court explained that virtual visits did not allow for development of a parental relationship, and given Jayson's age, the limited time living with mother, and the negative effects of the contacts as documented in the reports, the court concluded the bond between mother and child was "very, very weak." The court found that it would be detrimental to Jayson to return him to mother's custody, that there was clear and convincing evidence that Jayson was adoptable, and that no exception to adoption applied. The court terminated parental rights and designated Jayson's caregivers as his prospective adoptive parents.
IV. Appeals
On March 21, 2023, mother filed a timely appeal from the January 27, 2023 denial of her second section 388 petition (No. B328111). Mother also timely appealed from the April 10, 2023 denial of her third and fourth section 388 petitions, and from the termination of her parental rights (No. B328486). We granted mother's motion to consolidate the two appeals under appeal No. B328486, the instant appeal.
DISCUSSION
After examining the record, mother's appellate counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues, and advised mother that she could request permission from this court to file a supplemental brief upon a showing of good cause that an arguable issue exists. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 843844.) On December 28, 2023, mother filed a 32-page letter brief in which she presents a litany of complaints blaming her parents, the social workers, Jayson's caregivers, and the juvenile court for the current situation. She contests every trial court finding ranging from the initial detention and assertion of jurisdiction over Jayson and the adequacy of reunification services-which were adjudicated in prior appeals-to the termination of her parental rights. Her complaints either restate arguments that have been waived, that have been previously presented and rejected by this Court, or that do not establish prejudicial error.
This court presumes a trial court judgment is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) An appellant bears the burden of establishing error. Where an appellant does not establish an error, we may dismiss the appeal. (Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) Unlike in a criminal case, we have no duty to conduct an independent review of the record. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841-843.)
In this case, mother's supplemental brief identifies no arguable issues on appeal. Mother has not raised any arguable issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's findings and orders. We accordingly dismiss mother's appeal. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 846; Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
LUI, P. J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.