Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. CK83784 Albert Garcia, Juvenile Court Referee.
Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
DOI TODD, J.
Appellant Dean W. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders regarding his six-year-old son Charles B. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support both the jurisdictional finding that his use of medical marijuana placed his son at risk and the dispositional finding that removal of his son was necessary. He also challenges one of the juvenile court’s evidentiary rulings. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 20, 2010, police raided the residence in which Charles lived by making a forced entry. A total of 82 marijuana plants were found; 26 mature plants were growing in the backyard, some as tall as five feet, and 10 were found inside a tent. The remaining plants were being grown in a basement under Charles’s bedroom with a hydroponic system that allowed their growth without sunlight. When the police entered the basement, they reported smelling the strong odor of marijuana coming from the room. The basement had a ventilation system that forced air into Charles’s bedroom. The police also found cocaine in the house, which father later admitted belonged to him.
During the raid, the police found Charles asleep and unattended in his bedroom. His mother was out walking her dog. She informed the police that she and father were separated and that father was living in Oregon. Mother’s nephew, Jaime D., lived in the basement, where police found him “passed out.” Police reports indicate that he has been in state prison for three years on narcotics charges and was arrested for domestic violence. When the police raid was finished, the police arrested mother and Jaime for possession of narcotics for sale and cultivation of marijuana. In conducting surveillance of the house prior to their raid, the police observed mother and Jaime going back and forth between the main residence and the basement. Mother later stated that she was afraid of Jaime, that he had “scary” people come to the house, and that father had refused to “get rid” of him when she had asked. She also stated that Jaime once tore down bamboo fencing around some marijuana plants in the backyard because he thought the fencing was blocking too much sunlight.
Charles was later interviewed and denied knowing about the plants in the basement or seeing his mother use marijuana. He appeared healthy and said he felt safe in the home. Charles was taken into protective custody and placed with his paternal grandmother.
Both parents stated that they had medical marijuana cards. Father had a degenerative bone disease and anxiety and mother had arthritis. Father told the social worker that he had used marijuana years ago but had stopped until recently when he smoked some with a friend, who told him he could legally use marijuana to help with his pain. The friend got father a “recommendation” for marijuana from his doctor. Father described his cultivation of marijuana as his “new hobby.” He acknowledged having a drug history, including use of cocaine, methamphetamine, mushrooms and LSD. He claimed to have stopped using drugs in 1996, and described himself as a recovering addict. He acknowledged that an addict should not be smoking marijuana.
Father admitted having some dried marijuana in an upper dresser drawer in a jar with a lid in the residence. He acknowledged that Charles could have gotten into it, but stated that Charles had never shown any interest in father’s things. Father claimed that the plants in the basement were not accessible to Charles because the door was locked, but the police report documented that the basement door was unlocked when they searched the residence. Father also claimed the backyard was not Charles’s play area and that Charles did not have contact with the plants there.
The contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was held on October 6, 2010. Father testified that he was no longer using marijuana and had obtained alternative medication from his doctor. He had begun attending an outpatient drug and alcohol treatment program and was taking two parenting classes. He had previously used marijuana three to four times a week. He smoked marijuana in the backyard and stayed outside for about 15 minutes before going inside the house. He felt that at those times he was still able to care for Charles because he could do the dishes and make coffee. He also testified that when he smoked marijuana Charles’s mother was home to supervise. Father acknowledged that he had not taken sufficient precautions to safeguard Charles and that he should not have been using marijuana.
The trial court found that it had jurisdiction over Charles pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The court sustained the petition filed on Charles’s behalf by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) based on allegations that father and Charles’s mother had created a detrimental and endangering home environment in that father grew marijuana within access of Charles, and that father has a history of illicit drug use and is a current abuser of marijuana rendering him incapable of providing regular care for his son. As to disposition, the court ordered that Charles remain detained from his parents’ custody, and granted the parents family reunification services and monitored visits three times a week. Father was ordered to complete a drug rehabilitation program with random weekly testing and to complete a parenting course. This appeal followed.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
The court struck allegations in the petition that loaded weapons were found within reach of Charles, since the police report indicated that the 13 weapons recovered during the search were unloaded.
DISCUSSION
I. Jurisdiction.
A. Standard of Review.
Challenges to a juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1649; In re Clara B. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 988, 1000.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is “‘reasonable, credible and of solid value’” such that a reasonable trier of fact could make such findings. (In re Christina A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1080.) “We review the record to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or not, which supports the court’s conclusions.” (In re Kristin H., supra, at p. 1649.) “‘All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if possible.’” (Ibid.) Issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trial court and it is not our function to redetermine them. (In re Rubisela E. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 177, 195; In re B.D. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 975, 986.) “‘“‘In brief, the appellate court ordinarily looks only at the evidence supporting the successful party, and disregards the contrary showing.’”’” (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527.)
B. Jurisdictional Findings.
Section 300, subdivision (b) provides that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be adjudged a dependent child of the court if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parent’s failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child or inability to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s substance abuse.
Father argues there was no showing that his use of medical marijuana placed Charles at substantial risk of serious physical harm.
The parties both rely on In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 453, in which Division Three of this district agreed that “use of medical marijuana, without more, cannot support a jurisdiction finding....” In affirming the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings, the Alexis E. court found there was “more” occurring in that case. The court noted that the father was using marijuana illegally prior to having obtained a medical recommendation “and that fact supports a finding of a history of substance abuse”; and he used marijuana when his children were home and could smell it and the juvenile court could infer from this fact that his use of marijuana constituted a risk of harm to the minors because of the father’s failure to protect them from the negative effects of the secondhand marijuana smoke. (Id. at p. 451.)
Likewise, in this case, there is “more” than father’s mere use of medical marijuana to support the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over Charles. Father, too, has a long history of substance abuse and began using marijuana before obtaining a medical recommendation. The strong smell of marijuana was present in the basement of the family residence, which ventilated into six-year-old Charles’s bedroom, and father also smoked marijuana when Charles was home. The strong inference can be made that father failed to protect Charles from the negative effects of secondhand marijuana smoke. Moreover, father was not simply an occasional or recreational user of marijuana; he was cultivating 82 marijuana plants at the family residence, at times assisted by live-in relative Jaime, whom mother feared and who brought “scary” people to the residence. Despite father’s assertions to the contrary, Charles had access to multiple marijuana plants throughout the residence and was at risk of ingesting them. When the police conducted their raid on the residence, Charles was found alone and unattended in the main residence, the door to the attached basement where several plants were growing was unlocked, and Jaime was found passed out in the basement. Father was living in Oregon at the time and would not have known how much time Charles spent playing in the backyard, where Jaime had removed bamboo fencing around some of the plants and where others were growing in a tent. All of father’s drug activities culminated in a police raid on the house and the arrest of Charles’s mother.
As the department points out, section 300.2 provides that “[t]he provision of a home environment free from the negative effects of substance abuse is a necessary condition for the safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being of the child.”
We are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction.
II. Disposition.
Father contends there was insufficient evidence to remove Charles from his custody. We have taken judicial notice of a minute order dated January 5, 2011, which indicates that Charles was returned to his parents. As the department notes, it is well established that an appellate court will not review appeals which have become moot. An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315–1316.) Because we have no ability to grant effective relief from the removal order, this contention is moot.
III. Evidentiary Ruling.
Father contends the juvenile court erred at the disposition hearing by excluding from admission into evidence a single-paragraph form letter indicating that father had participated in one session of a parenting class and appeared to be grasping the techniques presented. He argues this documentary evidence was relevant to show his willingness and ability to improve his parenting so that he could successfully care for Charles in the future.
As the department points out, the evidence was offered during the adjudication phase of the October 6, 2010 hearing. Indeed, the juvenile court reminded father’s attorney, “this is not disposition, counsel, this is adjudication.” Father’s attendance at a parenting class was not relevant to the section 300 allegations in the petition. But even if it had been, the court still allowed father to testify about his attendance in parenting classes.
When the court reached the disposition phase of the hearing, father’s attorney did not seek to reintroduce the letter. Instead, his attorney made the offer of proof that if father were to testify again, he would say that he is participating in a drug program and two parenting programs. Although father’s attorney appeared to be requesting a stipulation regarding this testimony, the juvenile court did not respond and none of the other attorneys objected. Father’s attorney then argued his position and again mentioned that father was attending parenting classes. In fashioning its disposition order, the court noted that it had “heard the argument.”
We conclude that father’s final contention has no merit and that he has not provided any basis for reversal.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.