Opinion
B319822
06-23-2023
In re M.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. B.L., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Kelly G. Emling, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Sarah Liebowitz for the Minors.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 21CCJP05511A-B, Mary E. Kelly, Judge.
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Kelly G. Emling, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sarah Liebowitz for the Minors.
BAKER, Acting P. J.
B.L. (Father) noticed appeals from juvenile court disposition orders concerning minor M.B., born in 2021, and minor B.M.B., born in May 2018 (collectively, Minors). Father contends the juvenile court erred in ordering-at the disposition hearing for M.B. in April 2022-reunification services that would require him to participate in a full drug and alcohol program with aftercare, random weekly substance abuse testing, and a 12-step program with a sponsor and court card. (No identical order was made at the disposition hearing for B.M.B. held in June 2022.)
Father in this appeal challenges only the disposition order made as to minor M.B.; he does not argue there was any error with respect to minor B.M.B.
After Father noticed his appeal, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), counsel for the minors, and Father stipulated the aforementioned reunification services requirements were unjustified and jointly applied to this court to remand the cause to the juvenile court with directions to vacate those components of Father's case plan for M.B. while leaving that disposition order intact in all other respects. We accept the parties' stipulation.
Our ability to accept a stipulation for reversal in the dependency context is discussed in In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case involves reversible error because the parties now agree, and we concur, the aforementioned drug and alcohol components of Father's case plan were not reasonable and designed to eliminate the conditions that led to the finding of dependency jurisdiction. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 362, subd. (d); see generally In re K.T. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 20, 25 [disposition orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion and the findings of fact on which dispositional orders are based are reviewed for substantial evidence].) Specifically, no substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding at the April 2022 disposition hearing that "the longstanding drug abuse for these parents warrants the case plans"; DCFS found no indications of substance use during a visit to Father's home, Father denied alcohol or substance abuse issues, and Father had consistently tested negative for all substances after one positive test for marijuana years earlier in 2019.
In the juvenile court, DCFS proposed the case plan with the challenged drug and alcohol conditions that the court adopted over Father's objection.
Because this case would be subject to reversal absent the parties' stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That is to say, we find the interests of non-parties or the public are not adversely affected by our acceptance of the stipulation and the remand will not erode public trust or reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. (See Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-1330; In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at 379382.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's April 11, 2022, disposition order as to minor M.B. is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a new and different disposition order on the same terms and conditions previously ordered but without any requirement that Father participate in a full drug and alcohol program with aftercare, random weekly substance abuse testing, and a 12-step program with a sponsor and court card. The juvenile court's June 21, 2022, disposition order as to minor B.M.B. is affirmed. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the remittitur shall issue forthwith.
We concur: MOOR, J., KIM, J.