Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. CK73807 Jacqueline Lewis, Commissioner.
Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Robert E. Kalunian, Acting County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JOHNSON, J.
V.C. (Mother) appeals from a November 14, 2008 juvenile court order declaring her son T.V. a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 358 and 361 and removing T.V. from V.C.’s custody (Case no. B212459). Mother also appeals from an order entered at a March 25, 2009 six-month review hearing continuing T.V.’s placement with Father under court supervision (Case no. B215617). We treat the appeals as consolidated for purposes of discussion.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
After Mother filed her brief in the second appeal, the juvenile court, in an order dated June 23, 2007, returned T.V. to the “home of parents.” After the Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) filed its respondent’s brief in the second appeal, the court terminated its jurisdiction in an order dated October 2, 2009, pursuant to a family law order awarding joint legal and physical custody of T.V. to Mother and Father.
DCFS has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals as moot. We conclude that the issues Mother raises are moot, and we dismiss the appeals.
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2008, Mother, then 18 years old, flagged down a Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department deputy on patrol; she told him that she was locked out of her home and that her grandmother was inside passed out on the floor. The deputy was able to get into the house and found Mother’s grandmother, T.V.’s maternal great-grandmother (MGGM), on the bedroom floor. Before MGGM (who suffered from high blood pressure and diabetes) was transported to the hospital, she told the deputy that she had been arguing with Mother, who had made suicidal and homicidal statements, threatening to kill herself and T.V., then four months old. Mother denied intending to harm T.V., but admitted that she threatened to kill herself. Mother explained that MGGM and she had been arguing.
Mother was evaluated by the deputy and a mental health evaluation team. The team transported Mother to College Hospital, where she was placed on a hold under section 5150, which provides that an officer may take into custody and place in a 72-hour treatment and evaluation “any person [who], as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself.” T.V. was released to 20-year-old M.V. (Father).
DCFS filed a section 300 petition on July 29, 2009, asserting that Mother “has mental and emotional problems, including suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation, which render the mother unable to provide regular care of the child. On 7/24/2008, the mother was hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of the mother’s psychiatric condition. The mother’s mental and emotional condition endangers the child’s physical and emotional health and safety, placing the child at risk of physical and emotional harm and danger.”
At a July 29, 2008 detention hearing, the juvenile court declared Father T.V.’s presumed father, and Mother denied the allegation in the petition. Her attorney explained that Mother would be released from the hospital the next morning, and characterized the events as “a family dispute that got out of hand.” Mother worked full-time. She and T.V. lived with MGGM; Mother had become “offended” when MGGM told Mother that she could not stay in the house while MGGM was on a two-week vacation. T.V. was happy and healthy and Mother had no history of mental illness.
The detention report contained an interview with T.V.’s maternal grandmother (MGM), who said that Mother and MGGM had a “love/hate” relationship, that they argued a lot, and that Mother is a good mother to T.V. but a “drama queen” whose statements most likely had no substance. She said that Mother had no psychiatric history. Father called Mother a good mother whose relationship with MGGM was “argumentative.”
The juvenile court commented: “Suicidal ideations... are incredibly concerning to the court. We need to get a report from the persons treating her.” The court found a prima facie case for detaining T.V. under section 300 subdivision (b), and released T.V. to Father with monitored visitation for Mother.
In its jurisdiction/disposition report, filed August 28, 2008, DCFS reported that Mother, when interviewed, explained that she had never had mental health problems and never had thoughts of hurting herself, but under the pressure of working full time and taking care of T.V., she lost control of herself in a moment of anxiety and stress: “the thought of not having anywhere to live caused her (Mother) so much stress that she asked the maternal great grandmother if she (maternal great grandmother) wanted her (Mother) to kill herself.... [¶] [A]t no time did she ever say that she wanted to kill herself or her child.” Mother stated that she was diagnosed with depression at the hospital and prescribed Celexa, but it made her feel ill so she planned to get a second opinion. MGGM had left for Mexico and could not be interviewed.
The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report included a one-page discharge order from College Hospital dated July 30, 2008, stating that Mother had “depression,” prescribing 15 doses of Celexa, and scheduling a follow-up “mental health appointment” with Perris Mental Health Center on August 5.
Mother was then living with MGM, who stated that she was willing to have Father and T.V. live in her home. Father was living with a great uncle and working part-time at a restaurant. Mother had visited T.V. at Father’s home on weekends without any problems. Father described Mother as a responsible person who cared appropriately for T.V. T.V. was doing fine.
DCFS stated: “While the Mother... denies any mental health problems, it is significant that she has been diagnosed with depression, and that she has previously verbalized feelings of wanting to kill herself. [¶] While the Mother’s mental instability may have been triggered by problems with the [MGGM], it is telling that when diagnosed by professionals, the Mother was deemed to be suffering from depression, and was deemed to be in need of prescribed medications. [¶]... Mother... has refused to take the medications, indicating that they make her feel ill.... [¶] It is important to get a clear understanding of the Mother’s mental health condition prior to liberalizing the Mother’s visits, or releasing the child back to the Mother.”
At a hearing on September 11, 2008, Mother’s counsel noted that she had asked DCFS for a supplemental report addressing Mother’s medication, but had not received one; the court ordered a report. Counsel also requested a low-cost therapy referral, and the court ordered DCFS to provide it.
On September 25, Mother pleaded no contest to the petition. Her counsel reported that Mother was in therapy, but with a psychologist, and she would need a referral to a psychiatrist: “She has [n]o objection to being evaluated by a professional. It’s just been a problem with both funding and time.... [T]here’s been a lot of obstacles.”
A supplemental report from DCFS dated September 25, 2008 reported that Mother was living with MGM, that she had begun counseling, and that Mother had signed a release to allow DCFS to speak with her therapist. MGM had called the Perris Mental Health Center twice about Mother’s appointment and its cost, but the Center had not called back. The report stated: “Also, attempts to secure the medical records from College Hospital for review have been unsuccessful as the hospital indicated that they would not release the Mother[’s]... medical records without a subpoena. However, the hospital crisis team did explain that when a person is brought into their hospital by police, a mental health professional from the hospital will determine whether or not hospitalization is warranted.” Mother explained that the medication made her feel sick, and that she had not gone to the appointment at Perris Mental Health Center because of the cost.
The report’s recommendation stated that Mother had “at the minimum, one episode in which she was unable to properly function. [¶]... [¶] The Department is very concerned that the Mother... has not taken her prescribed medications, and that she has not sought treatment as recommended by the College Hospital. The fact that the Mother denied having any mental health issues, that she failed to attend a scheduled mental health appointment, and that she refused to take her prescribed medications, leads the Department to conclude that the Mother... is in denial and not yet properly dealing with her mental health issues. [¶]... [¶] [T]he department would recommend that the Mother... not be allowed to be alone with the child until she has undergone consistent mental health treatment, until she has consistently taken her medication, and until she has undergone a further comprehensive mental health evaluation by an appropriate mental health professional. [¶]... [¶] The Mother... needs to seek treatment, she needs to take her medications, she needs to gain insight into her mental health issues and she needs to follow through with all recommendations given by clinicians.”
After speaking to Mother’s therapist, DCFS filed another supplemental report on October 28, 2008. The licensed marriage and family therapist explained that she could not prescribe drugs, or offer any psychiatric opinion or evaluation. While she was aware of Mother’s hospitalization, she was not qualified to give an opinion on Mother’s need for psychotropic medications. Mother had missed one appointment because she was traveling, and another because she was sick.
The report characterized Mother and Father as “very young, first-time parents who have had a history of bickering, and who will need all of the support they can secure.”
Yet another supplemental report, dated November 7, 2008, indicated that Mother missed two appointments at Perris Mental Health Center and then walked in for an assessment. A Center worker (not a mental health professional) administered a questionnaire, with no records to review. When Mother denied having any mental health symptoms, the Center determined that she did not meet the Center’s criteria for services, and the Center referred her to another psychiatrist.
At the disposition hearing on November 14, 2008, Mother testified that the Celexa she was prescribed made her feel “really nauseous,” causing her to throw up and sleep all day. The doctor had seen her twice in the hospital on the third day and prescribed the Celexa. She told the nurses it made her sick and stopped taking it when she left the hospital because “I didn’t feel like myself. It wasn’t good for me.” She did not remember being told to continue to take the medication after discharge. She had discussed it with her family doctor (who did not have her hospital medical records) and he did not feel comfortable prescribing her anything.
When she left, she was given a prescription and the date of the referral at Perris Mental Health Center. She did not keep the appointment because the Center told her over the phone that they could not help her. Mother denied any prior mental health issues.
DCFS recommended that T.V. stay with Father, and that Father take a parenting class and participate in joint counseling with Mother. Mother should participate actively in mental health treatment, “including any prescribed medication if necessary. [¶]...[¶] [W]hat the mother needs is for a professional in psychiatry to make the assessment and determine whether or not she does need medication and what is the most appropriate way for her to get healthy and for her to be able to parent her child appropriately.” Counsel for T.V. also requested that Mother be “psychologically assessed” and “comply with that recommendations [sic] following the psychiatric assessment.” Mother’s counsel countered: “The Department believes she has a mental illness. Maybe she does. Maybe she doesn’t. Nonetheless, this was a one time incident. There’s no history here of mental illness. Nothing has happened subsequent to this incident.” Counsel asked that Mother be permitted to live with Father and T.V.
The juvenile court concluded: “this comes down to the fact that the mother threatened her own life and that of her then three-month-old baby to the point where the police believed a 5150 was necessary.” The court noted that Mother was evaluated in the hospital, which admitted her for six days, and that on discharge “they diagnosed her with depression and prescribed medications, which mother hasn’t taken nor has mother followed up with getting any after treatment to either get different medication that made her feel differently [sic].” The court detailed Mother’s missed appointments, and stated that when she did walk-in to Perris Mental Health Center she “did not report any suicidal or homicidal ideation.”
The court then stated: “From what I can gather, Mother has refused to sign a release of information to give information regarding her original hospitalization, nor has any of that information been provided to either the persons that triaged her at Perris Mental Health or her own doctor, who said she was not in need of medication. And so I am left with a mother that threatened to kill her three-month-old son, without any follow-up. [¶] I’ve continued this a number of times to try to get—to give this young mother an opportunity to get that information in front of the court, to alleviate the very serious concerns. And—and she hasn’t done it. And here we are 120 days out, and we still don’t have it.”
The court then declared T.V. a dependent, removed him from Mother’s custody, and placed T.V. with Father. The court ordered family reunification services for Mother, ordered her to participate in individual counseling and “take all prescribed medications.” Father was ordered to take a parenting class; Mother was not, “because, absent the threat to kill [T.V.], she apparently was taking pretty good care of him prior to this case coming into the system.” Mother’s visitation with T.V. was to be monitored, with DCFS given discretion to allow Mother to live with Father and MGM.
Mother’s counsel asked: “Does the court still want my client to get a full psychological assessment?” The court responded: “You know, I think that would be a really good place to start. But the reality is she’s going to need to go someplace that [has] her medical records from her hospitalization and can do a full assessment of what’s going on here.” The court ordered DCFS to provide free and low-cost referrals.
Mother appealed the November 14, 2009 order. Meanwhile, T.V.’s dependency case continued with a six-month review hearing on March 25, 2009. DCFS reported that Father had not begun the ordered parenting classes. Mother continued to attend therapy, and her therapist reported that she was “cooperative and compliant,” and was learning to reduce stress and manage her emotions. The court had “strongly suggested” that Mother receive a psychiatric assessment, but she was refused at one facility because she did not qualify for emergency services. She therefore could not have unmonitored visitation because she did not have the “suggested mental health assessment.” Father had been monitoring the visits, but the parents argued, and Mother had been more cooperative than Father in complying with the visitation order. DCFS advised Father not to monitor the visits.
Remarkably, the report then stated that on February 25, 2009, Father was referred for suspected child abuse of T.V. Father was showering and placed T.V. in the bottom of the tub. T.V., nearly one year old, pulled the plunger as Father was turning off the water, and hot water from the tub faucet burned T.V.’s arm and upper torso; he was taken to the emergency room and treated. The report treated the “isolated incident” as an opportunity for Father “to learn a very valuable lesson about his baby’s growth and developing abilities,” and recommended that Father participate in the parenting classes the court had ordered in November and which he so far had failed to begin. DCFS recommended that T.V. remain with Father.
The plan update stated that “Father... is in serious need of parenting classes so as to be able to keep up with his son’s developmental progress,” and that “Mother wants to be clear about exactly what is requested of her to have her son [T.V.] returned to her care.”
At the hearing, Mother’s counsel pointed out that Mother had been seeking a psychiatric evaluation but had been turned away because “it wasn’t in the dispo case plan.” She asked the court to order a 730 evaluation so Mother could have T.V. back in her care. T.V.’s counsel requested a supplemental report on T.V.’s burns while in Father’s care, with the doctors’ opinions on the incident.
The court continued T.V. in Father’s custody, giving Mother “as much monitored visitation as can be worked out with caretaker.” The court also ordered a release of the records on the burn incident, a psychiatric evaluation of Mother under Evidence Code section 730, and a report from DCFS as to both.
At a hearing on June 23, 2009, the court stated that it had received and read the section 730 evaluation of Mother. The court continued T.V. as a dependent and terminated the order placing T.V. in the home of Father, placing T.V. in the home of both parents. The court ordered Mother to remain in therapy and DCFS to provide couples counseling referrals to Mother and Father.
On October 2, 2009, the Court terminated dependency jurisdiction over T.V., concluding: “[T]hose conditions which would justify the initial assumption of jurisdiction under WIC section 300 no longer exist and are not likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn and the court terminates jurisdiction with a family law order awarding joint legal and physical custody with visitation as detailed in family law order. The family law order is filed this date and incorporated herein by reference to the case file.”
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), and 459, subdivision (a), we take judicial notice of the transcript of the March 25, 2009 hearing transcript and minute order, the June 23, 2009 hearing transcript and minute order, and the October 2, 2009 minute order terminating jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
DCFS contends in its motion to dismiss that the appeals from the November 14, 2008 order and the March 25, 2009 order are moot after the court’s termination of jurisdiction on October 2, 2009. “As a general rule, an order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot.” (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488, citing In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330.) Nevertheless, we decide dismissal under these circumstances “‘on a case-by-case basis,’” and “‘[a]n issue is not moot if the purported error infects the outcome of subsequent proceedings.’” (In re C.C., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at 1488.)
The juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over T.V. and, in addition, incorporated a family law order described only as “awarding joint legal and physical custody with visitation as detailed in family law order.” The parties did not request that we take judicial notice of the family law order itself, and it is not in the record. The juvenile court order of June 23, however, returned T.V. to “home of parents” and therefore gave Mother the relief she sought on her initial appeal, the return of T.V. to her custody. Mother does not argue that the subsequent family law order rescinded that relief.
Moreover, any future issues regarding T.V.’s custody may be heard in the family law division of Superior Court. “The moment the juvenile court terminates the dependency proceedings, the child passes completely from the mandatory jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and the jurisdiction of the superior court, including the family law court, is available.” (In re Sarah M. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1486, 1504, disapproved on other grounds in In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 204.) The court’s termination of jurisdiction and its issuance of a family law order giving Mother joint legal and physical custody “would thus seem to doubly moot [the] appeal.” (In re C.C., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at 1489.)
Mother argues that her appeals are not moot, however, because “there is a substantial risk of adverse circumstances if defective orders are left intact and the child is ever removed again from mother in a subsequent proceeding.” Given the court’s termination of jurisdiction, however, Mother’s concern is highly speculative, as it depends on both a hypothetical future filing by DCFS of a Section 300 petition regarding T.V. and a removal of T.V. from Mother’s custody. We conclude that Mother’s appeals are moot, and we decline to consider her arguments on the merits.
We note that Mother’s appeal argues that there was not substantial evidence that she suffered from a mental illness requiring the removal of T.V., and that the juvenile court made a number of mistaken rulings which placed the burden on Mother to prove that she did not suffer from a mental illness. Whatever the court’s missteps, it eventually ordered a psychiatric evaluation under Evidence Code section 730. The court reviewed the report before the June 23, 2009 hearing at which it placed T.V. in the home of Mother and Father, thus giving Mother some of the relief she requested. The requests for judicial notice did not include the Evidence Code section 730 report, and we have no information about its contents.
DISPOSITION
The motions to dismiss the appeals as moot are granted.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., CHANEY, J.