Opinion
D082952
03-07-2024
In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J521147B, Alexander M. Calero, Judge.
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
INTRODUCTION
J.M. (Mother) appeals a juvenile court order declaring her son, T.M., a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Codesection 300, subdivision (b)(1)(D). Mother contends the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding is not supported by substantial evidence. As we shall discuss, we conclude Mother's appeal is not justiciable because the unchallenged jurisdictional findings against Te.M. (Father) support continued jurisdiction over T.M. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
All undesignated statutes references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother and Father came to the attention of the Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) in 2022 when T.M.'s sibling, M.M., tested positive for fentanyl at birth. Mother also tested positive for fentanyl and marijuana. The Agency offered Mother voluntary services, but she failed to maintain her sobriety or consistently participate in drug treatment and testing. The Agency petitioned the court on M.M.'s behalf and she was declared a dependent of the juvenile court. M.M. was placed in the care of her maternal grandparents and Mother was ordered to participate in family reunification services.
M.M. and Father are not parties to this appeal and are discussed only when relevant.
During the dependency proceedings involving M.M., Mother disclosed to the Agency she was pregnant with T.M. While pregnant, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl in May 2023. She also tested positive for fentanyl and marijuana in June and July 2023, with her most recent test less than a week before T.M.'s birth. Notwithstanding her multiple positive drug tests, Mother denied any fentanyl use and maintained that she last used methamphetamine one or two years prior to T.M.'s birth. Mother enrolled in a drug treatment program, but she was dropped from the program after six sessions when her counselor was unable to reach her.
When T.M. was born, Mother tested positive for marijuana. Although T.M. tested positive for fentanyl, hospital staff attributed the positive results to the epidural given to Mother during childbirth. In a conversation with a hospital social worker, Mother admitted she used marijuana during her pregnancy but denied using other drugs. However, in a previous discussion with a doctor during her pregnancy, Mother admitted to a history of fentanyl and methamphetamine use.
After Mother and T.M. were discharged from the hospital, they moved into a detached room behind maternal grandmother's home. An Agency social worker visited their home and observed T.M. to be free of marks and bruises. She also observed Mother to behave appropriately and respond to T.M.'s cues. Mother denied using fentanyl during her pregnancy and told the social worker she did not understand why she tested positive for the drug. Mother indicated she did not want to engage in a safety plan because she did not understand why a plan was necessary if she was not using drugs. However, Mother then agreed to seek substance abuse treatment in a program that would allow her to continue to care for T.M.
Mother enrolled in the drug treatment program in August 2023. At her intake appointment, she tested positive for alcohol and marijuana. Mother claimed the positive alcohol result was a mistake.
On August 9, 2023, the Agency petitioned the juvenile court on T.M.'s behalf pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The petition alleged T.M. was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness due to Mother's drug use and her failure to consistently engage in drug treatment. The petition further asserted that Mother's history of substance abuse led to dependency proceedings for T.M.'s sibling, and that Mother had not maintained her sobriety or consistently participated in drug treatment in that case. As to Father, the petition alleged he had a history of substance abuse and was currently incarcerated. Consequently, the Agency alleged T.M. was in need of the protection of the juvenile court.
At the detention hearing, the court made prima facie findings that T.M. fell within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. T.M. was detained in Mother's care provided that she tested negative for drugs, engaged in drug treatment, utilized the support of the maternal grandparents, and that Father remained out of the home.
An Agency social worker visited Mother and T.M. at their residence following the detention hearing. The social worker observed T.M. to be "healthy and comfortable" and did not find any safety concerns in the home. Mother appeared alert and did not appear to be under the influence of any substances.
Mother was participating in substance abuse treatment for approximately two months between her enrollment in her program and the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. As part of her treatment, Mother attended daily classes, weekly individual counseling sessions, and submitted to random drug tests. She did not test positive for any drugs aside from marijuana, and the Agency reported that her levels of marijuana were "tapering off." Mother's counselor directed her to obtain a sponsor and develop a relapse prevention plan as part of her treatment. An Agency report dated October 10, 2023-two days before the jurisdiction and disposition hearing-indicated Mother had yet to obtain a sponsor or develop a relapse prevention plan.
The Agency's reports also discussed Father's history of substance abuse and his failure to remain consistent with treatment. The Agency reported Father was arrested for a probation violation shortly before T.M. was born, and he remained incarcerated throughout the dependency proceedings.
At the contested jurisdiction hearing, Mother submitted two letters from her provider confirming her participation and progress in her treatment program. The letters represented that Mother was participating in daily programming, submitting to drug testing, and working on developing a relapse prevention plan with her counselor. The program reported that Mother had good attendance and was communicative regarding any absences.
Mother argued the Agency did not meet their burden of proving T.M. was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b), and asked the court to dismiss the petition. Although she acknowledged she was newly engaged with services, she argued this alone was insufficient evidence to support the petition. Mother emphasized that she had been in compliance with her treatment program, was submitting to drug testing, and that the Agency observed her to be an attentive parent with T.M. Father and T.M.'s counsel joined Mother's request and asked the court to dismiss the petition.
Although the Agency recognized Mother was currently doing well in treatment, they emphasized the length of time she had struggled with substance abuse and the need to ensure T.M.'s safety while she "continue[d] her journey in sobriety." The Agency noted that during a time in which Mother was provided services in relation to T.M.'s sibling, she exposed T.M. to drugs in utero and was dropped from a treatment program. The Agency asked the court to make a true finding on the petition but recommended that the court order T.M. placed with Mother.
In its ruling, the juvenile court acknowledged, "Mother has engaged in services and is making, by all reports, good progress in services." However, the court discussed her history of substance abuse and her repeated lack of candor regarding her drug use. Based on these factors, the court found "it is more likely than not that the allegations in the petition are true, and that supervision is still appropriate at this time." The court made the same findings as to Father and found that T.M.'s removal from his care was appropriate. The court ordered T.M. placed with Mother and required the Agency to provide Mother with family maintenance services. Mother timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings against her. She focuses on the evidence pertaining to the Agency's allegations of drug use, and she argues the Agency did not prove she was unable to provide regular care for T.M. As we shall discuss, we conclude her challenge to the jurisdictional finding is not justiciable, and we decline to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of her appeal.
When allegations in a dependency petition involve both parents, "it is necessary only for the court to find that one parent's conduct has created circumstances triggering section 300 for the court to assert jurisdiction over the child." (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491 (I.A.).) This is because the primary concern of dependency proceedings is "the protection of [the] children," and the focus of the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings is therefore the "children, not [the] parents." (Ibid.) Thus, "[a]s 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 (M.W.).)
"We nonetheless retain discretion to consider the merits of a parent's appeal [citation], and often do so 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." '" (M.W., supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1452.) Although Mother acknowledges Father has not appealed, and that the unchallenged jurisdictional findings as to Father will continue to support dependency jurisdiction over T.M., she argues the justiciability doctrine should not apply to preclude review of the merits of her claim. The Agency does not dispute that this court has discretion to reach the merits of Mother's claim on appeal. However, we decline to exercise such discretion in this case.
Here, Mother does not challenge the court's dispositional orders, nor does she argue these orders provide a basis for the justiciability of her claims. Rather, she contends we should consider the merits of her appeal because the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings "will certainly impact future dependency proceedings or any future hearings in [f]amily court, because the family has a referral history and legal history with the dependency court." However, Mother's prior history in the juvenile court is unaffected by the jurisdictional findings in this case, and she has not provided persuasive evidence that the challenged findings could have the consequences she alludes to. She has therefore not demonstrated, with sufficient specificity, that the court's jurisdictional findings could impact her in future dependency proceedings or create consequences for her outside of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, because Mother does not challenge the dispositional orders, or identify specific prejudice she would suffer from the dismissal of her appeal, we conclude we are unable to grant effective relief and we therefore do not find it appropriate to exercise our discretion to consider her appeal. (I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1490 ["An important requirement for justiciability is the availability of 'effective' relief-that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status."].) Thus, we decline to address the merits of Mother's claims and dismiss the appeal as nonjusticiable.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: BUCHANAN, J., KELETY, J.