Opinion
E082214
06-14-2024
In re A.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.L., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Law Office of Zulu Ali & Associates, Zulu Ali and M. Lance Kennix for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. DPSW2300208 Sean P. Crandell, Judge. Dismissed.
Law Office of Zulu Ali & Associates, Zulu Ali and M. Lance Kennix for Defendant and Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MILLER, J.
Defendant and appellant A.L. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders involving his two sons, An.L. (born March 2019) and J.L. (born July 2021; collectively, Minors). On appeal, Father contends there was insufficient evidence presented to support the jurisdictional findings of domestic violence and substance abuse alleged against him to sustain the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition (Petition), subdivision (b) findings.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. DETENTION
On June 9, 2023, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (Department) received a referral with allegations of general neglect and physical abuse of Minors. Father and Mother had joint custody of Minors as ordered by the Family Law court. On June 4, 2023, Father picked up An.L. from Mother and he complained that his leg hurt. When Father mentioned taking An.L. to the doctor, An.L. cried hysterically. An.L. had fading marks on his left leg and near his hip. The three marks appeared to be bites or bruises. An.L. was worried the doctor would hurt his "butt." It was reported that it was possible that friends of Mother may be hurting Minors. There was also a report that Mother hit An.L. Father believed that Minors' aunt (Aunt) was abusing Minors. Father reported that An.L. cries hysterically when he picks him up from Mother at 3:00 a.m. He insisted that Minors both cried all day when they were with him and blamed Mother for their behavior.
In response to the report, a social worker went to Mother's home unannounced on June 14, 2023. Maternal grandmother (MGM) was present and caring for Minors. She had no concerns with how Mother treated Minors. MGM was concerned for Mother's safety because Father was controlling and bullied Mother. She had seen no physical abuse between Mother and Father but had witnessed verbal abuse by Father. Father always picked up Minors at 3:30 a.m. claiming it was his right. MGM reported that Aunt was no longer taking care of Minors because Father complained that she was abusing Minors. Father had harassed Aunt and she no longer wanted to care for Minors. MGM feared for the safety of Minors if Father was given full custody because he was "unpredictable." Minors were present in the home and both appeared to be healthy and had no observable marks or bruises.
On June 14, 2023, the social worker returned to Mother's home to meet with her. Mother reported that Father was verbally and mentally abusive. Father had "pushed and shoved her but never punched or slapped her." When Mother and Father lived together, he was controlling and isolated her from her family. Father believed that a woman should be at home cooking and cleaning, and doing whatever a man told her to do. One time during a verbal argument, Father told Mother "It is easy to make a murder look like a suicide." She did not call the police because she believed it would make Father more aggressive. Mother denied she had ever physically abused Minors. Father had told Mother "she was going down" and he would do whatever he wanted with Minors. He also threatened that if they went to court, she would never see Minors again as he would be granted full custody. Mother had not filed a restraining order against Father because she insisted it would make him "angrier." During the visit, the social worker observed that An.L. was very demanding and aggressive with Mother. Mother reported he exhibited this behavior whenever he returned from Father's care.
On June 15, 2023, Mother contacted the social worker stating that Father had sent her a video of An.L. hysterically crying claiming that Aunt had hit him. Father kept calling her after he picked up Minors at 3:00 a.m. accusing her of hurting Minors. Mother was advised not to respond to Father.
On June 18, 2023, Father reported that he picked up Minors from Mother's home and J.L. was crying and saying "Owie Owie" and "Pee Pee." Father took Minors to the hospital to be examined for possible sexual abuse. J.L. had red marks around his anus but the examining doctor believed it to be diaper rash. Father insisted that Mother left Minors with random family members, that Aunt was hitting them and Mother's boyfriend was hurting Minors. On June 19, 2023, Mother forwarded the social worker a text message from Father stating he was going to "bring his shovel to get to the bottom of shit."
The social worker made a visit to Father's home on June 21, 2023. The home was clean. When the social worker advised Father that she was there to discuss Minors and allegations of domestic violence, he became agitated and complained that the Department did not help fathers. Father was evasive when asked about his messages to Mother about bringing a shovel and that it was easy to make murder look like suicide. He got angry and accused the social worker of taking Mother's side. The social worker tried to continue the conversation but Father slammed his hands on the table and told her to finish because she was not listening to him. The social worker attempted to continue and Father told her "get your shit" and "get the fuck out of my house." During a walk-through of the house, the social worker smelled a strong odor of marijuana in the room that Father shared with Minors. When she asked Father if he uses marijuana, he responded "It's legal." He denied smoking in front of Minors; he smoked on the patio away from Minors.
The Department expressed concern for the safety of Minors based on Father's erratic behavior and unwillingness to cooperate. The Department was also concerned about Mother's protective capacity as she had failed to obtain a restraining order despite being so advised by the Department. The Department was recommending that Minors remain in the care of Mother and Father with supervision and participation in services.
Text messages exchanged between Father and Mother were attached to the detention report. This included a text message in which Father stated that he hated Mother and was bringing a shovel "to the get to the bottom of it." Medical records were also provided, which included an emergency room visit where Father complained of child abuse that was determined to be unfounded.
On July 6, 2023, the Department filed the Petition against Mother and Father for Minors. It was alleged under failure to protect, section 300, subdivision (b), that under allegation b-1, Mother failed to protect Minors from acts of domestic violence perpetrated by Father, and Mother failed to contact law enforcement to intervene to protect the children thereby placing Minors at risk of suffering physical and emotional harm. In addition, on June 14, 2023, Mother reported that Father pushed and shoved her. Allegation b-2 provided Father had a history of domestic violence against Mother placing the children at risk of physical and emotional harm. On June 14, 2023, it was reported by Mother that Father had pushed and shoved her. Finally, allegation b-3, stated that Father abused controlled substances, including but not limited to marijuana, placing the children at risk of suffering physical and emotional harm. On June 21, 2023, a strong odor of marijuana was present in Father's bedroom, which he shared with Minors.
An addendum report was filed by the Department on July 18, 2023. Mother wanted to obtain a restraining order against Father. An.L.'s doctor recommended that based on his tantrums and hitting Mother, he should see a pediatric psychologist. Mother had enrolled in a parenting class and had completed an initial assessment for therapy. Father contacted the Department several times complaining about how Mother was caring for Minors and accusing the Department of providing inaccurate details in their reports. Father had not signed up for any classes and accused the Department of helping Mother even though she was abusing Minors. An.L. told Father that while staying with Mother over the weekend, Aunt repeatedly hit J.L. on the back; Father claimed that J.L. had bruises on his back. No photographs were provided by Father.
At the detention hearing on July 21, 2023, Mother and Father were represented by counsel and present in court. Mother was seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Father. The Department submitted on the Petition, detention report, and the addendum report filed on July 18, 2023. The Department asked that the juvenile court make prima facie findings that Minors came with section 300 and that they remain in the custody of Mother and Father. The juvenile court found that based on the harassing behavior by Father, including calling at "all hours" justified the issuance of the TRO. The only communication allowed was in regard to the exchange of Minors. The juvenile court found a prima facie case had been shown to support the section 300 Petition.
B. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION REPORT AND HEARING
In the jurisdiction/disposition report filed on August 8, 2023, the Department recommended that the juvenile court find the allegations in the Petition true by a preponderance of the evidence and that Minors remain in the homes of Mother and Father. Mother and Father should be ordered to participate in family maintenance services.
An.L. was interviewed and reported he felt safe with both Mother and Father. Father was present during the interview and An.L. seemed attached to Father. J.L. was too young to be interviewed. Mother and Father were not interviewed as both of their attorneys advised them not to participate in an interview.
The Department indicated that the allegations in the Petition should be found true by a preponderance of the evidence. As for the allegation against Mother, for failing to protect Minors because of domestic violence, Mother reported being intimidated and worried about Father's unpredictable behavior. Further, Mother was concerned that Father was being mentally abusive towards Minors.
An.L. was still exhibiting aggressive behavior and refused to be potty trained despite being four years old. An.L. completed his first consultation with a psychologist.
As for the allegations against Father, Mother had reported that in the past, Father had pushed and shoved her during an argument. Father insisted they only had verbal arguments. The Department stated that "[a]lthough there is no concrete evidence of the physical aspect," it was concerned with the behaviors Father exhibited while interacting with social workers. He frequently interrupted the social worker and was verbally combative. Further, Father had harassed Mother and her family by calling excessively and making unannounced visits to the home. He constantly called Mother while she was with Minors. Father had verbally threatened Mother by telling her that it was easy to make a murder look like a suicide. Father slammed his hands on the table during one interaction with a social worker in his home and told her to get out of his home.
As for the allegation of substance abuse, the Department contended that Father advised a social worker on May 11, 2023, that he smoked marijuana daily while Minors were sleeping. He had a negative saliva test despite admitting to smoking marijuana. On June 12, 2023, the odor of marijuana was smelled in Father's home. Father admitted that he smoked marijuana as it was "legal" but only outside. On August 1, 2023, another home visit was conducted and there was no odor of marijuana. A saliva drug test on August 3, 2023, was negative. Father refused to attend a scheduled urine test and did not reschedule with the social worker.
The matter was first heard on August 11, 2023. The matter was set contested. Father's counsel expressed concern as to the validity of the allegations in the Petition. Further, Father's counsel requested that the Department consider voluntary family maintenance services. Mother's counsel did not object to considering voluntary family maintenance but was concerned that Father had stated he would not participate in services. The Department agreed to assess the matter but Father would have to agree to participate in services.
An addendum report was filed on September 13, 2023. The Department requested that the allegations in the Petition be found true, that the family be provided family maintenance services, and that Minors remain in the custody of Mother and Father.
Father missed a drug test on August 3, 2023. Father sent numerous messages to the Department complaining about the unfounded allegations, contending that his constitutional rights were being violated, and refusing to take any further drug tests. Father sent the Department an additional text message on August 14, 2023, with a photograph of himself with a marijuana cigarette in his mouth that was burning and drug results from his medical provider. The results from his medical provider under "THC Urine" included a positive and a negative notation but it was not clear which result was accurate. The Department made numerous attempts to contact Father regarding participating in services but he made inconsistent statements as to whether he was willing to participate in services.
Father sent a screenshot of a conversation to the social worker, which was between him and Mother on August 21, 2023. They discussed a prior incident that occurred. Mother accused Father of making her fingernail bleed. Father denied that this happened but admitted that he had pushed her when Mother had backed him into a corner.
Mother, Father, and An.L. had a visit with a therapist on August 8, 2023. Mother advised the social worker that the therapist wanted to talk to her because the therapist believed that Father's behavior at the session was unacceptable and not healthy for Minors. Mother forwarded to the social worker several messages from Father harassing her about her care of Minors. Mother was participating in domestic violence classes and therapy. She was on a waitlist for a parenting class. Father was not currently enrolled in any services.
Father filed a declaration with the juvenile court contesting all allegations in the Petition. He sent an offer of settlement to the Department seeking 7.2 million dollars for defamation, discrimination, harassment, entrapment, and violating his constitutional rights. He also filed a document that Mother violated the TRO by showing up at his house to inspect his vehicle to make sure it was safe for Minors. This showed that he was not a threat.
Father also filed a Petition to proceed in propria persona.
The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on September 18, 2023. Mother submitted on the recommendations of the Department. Father's request to proceed in propria persona was granted. The juvenile court considered the documents filed by Father.
The Department contended that the allegations in the Petition should be found true and that Mother and Father be ordered to participate in family maintenance services. Mother's counsel argued that the permanent restraining order was appropriate based on the aggressive communication between Mother and Father. Father asked the juvenile court that if the allegation that he had a history of domestic violence and was a threat was true, it did not make sense that the Department was recommending that he maintain custody of Minors. The juvenile court noted that it was an indication that Mother and Father could not be together, but that they could separately care for Minors. Father had no further argument. Father contested the restraining order arguing that Mother violated the TRO by coming to his house.
In its ruling, the juvenile court noted that it was not a criminal courtroom. If it was a criminal court, the burden of proof would be much higher. The juvenile court had read all of the Department's reports and found the allegations in the Petition to be true by a preponderance of the evidence. Mother and Father were ordered to participate in family maintenance services. Minors would remain in the custody of Mother and Father. The "long-term" restraining order was granted.
On September 25, 2023, Father filed a motion to dismiss in the juvenile court, which is not considered on appeal.
DISCUSSION
Father contends there was no substantial evidence presented by the Department to support the allegations in the Petition that he engaged in and had a history of domestic violence against Mother placing Minors at risk of physical and emotional harm, the b-2 allegation; and that he abuses controlled substances, including but not limited to marijuana, placing Minors at risk of suffering physical and emotional harm, the b-3 allegation. He does not challenge the b-1 allegation against Mother and Mother has not appealed.
The Department addresses the b-1 allegation in its brief, but Father specifically stated he was only appealing from the findings on the b-2 and b-3 allegations.
"A court is tasked with the duty' "to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it."' A case becomes moot when events' "render[] it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to grant him any effect[ive] relief."' [Citation.] For relief to be 'effective,' two requirements must be met. First, the plaintiff must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the plaintiff seeks.'" (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.)
The California Supreme Court has found "the principle that '[d]ependency jurisdiction attaches to a child, not to his or her parent' [citation], means that' "[a]s long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate"' [citation]. Thus, where jurisdictional findings have been made as to both parents but only one parent brings a challenge, the appeal may be rendered moot." (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283 .) "As a general rule, a single jurisdictional finding supported by substantial evidence is sufficient to support jurisdiction and render moot a challenge to the other findings." (In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452.)
Father has not challenged the findings against Mother in this appeal and Mother has not appealed. He specifically states in his opening brief that he is only challenging the allegations in b-2 and b-3. He further does not dispute the dispositional order; he only attacks the jurisdiction findings. As such, the juvenile court will still have jurisdiction over Minors if Father prevails on appeal based on the true finding against Mother. The dispositional order would not change. This renders the appeal moot. (In re M.C. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 137, 150-151 [" '[b]ecause the juvenile court assumes jurisdiction of the child, not the parents, jurisdiction may exist based on the conduct of one parent only' "].)
"Even when a case is moot, courts may exercise their 'inherent discretion' to reach the merits of the dispute." (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) Father has not identified the specific legal or practical consequences of the findings against him. Further, he makes no argument how the dispositional order-which ordered that Minors remain in his and Mother's custody and they were to participate in family maintenance services- would be changed if this court were to reverse the true findings on b-2 and b-3. "[W]hen a parent has demonstrated a specific legal or practical consequence that will be averted upon reversal, the case is not moot, and merits review is required. When a parent has not made such a showing, the case is moot, but the court has discretion to decide the merits nevertheless." (Id. at p. 283.) "Ultimately, in deciding whether to exercise its discretion, a court should be guided by the overarching goals of the dependency system: 'to provide maximum safety and protection for children' with a 'focus' on 'the preservation of the family as well as the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child.'" (Id. at p. 286.)
We decline to exercise our discretion to consider Father's moot appeal of the jurisdictional findings and disposition order. Father's appeal does not present circumstances that generally warrant discretionary review of a moot case, such as a broad public interest that is likely to recur, the likelihood of a recurrence of the controversy between the parties, or a material question that remains for the court's determination. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) Father makes no effort to argue how the dispositional order would be changed. In fact, he merely states that he is seeking reversal of the jurisdictional order. Father and Mother in this case were given custody of Minors and were ordered to complete family maintenance services. We see no reason to exercise our discretion to review the case. As such, we will order dismissal of the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. CODRINGTON J.