Opinion
B333700
09-26-2024
In re JEDIDIAH H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. CARL H., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 23CCJP03103, Tamara Hall, Judge. Affirmed.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FEUER, J.
Carl H. (Father) appeals from a jurisdiction finding and disposition order declaring his son, Jedidiah H., a dependent of the juvenile court after the court sustained a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court's jurisdiction finding that his current substance abuse placed Jedidiah at substantial risk of harm. Father also argues the court abused its discretion by ordering him to attend a substance abuse treatment program. We affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Referral and Investigation
On July 28, 2023 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral stating then-12-year-old Jedidiah had been living with a relative since April 2023, Father had not been providing any support for Jedidiah's care, and Father's current whereabouts were unknown.
Father had sole legal and physical custody of Jedidiah pursuant to a 2019 family court order. The Department conducted due diligence to locate Jedidiah's mother but was unable to find her.
During an interview with a Department social worker on August 3, 2023, Jedidiah's paternal aunt, Jenee H., explained she had been caring for Jedidiah since April after Father failed to pick the child up from a mental health hospital. Jedidiah had been hospitalized for five days because Father told hospital staff Jedidiah had been cutting himself and sticking forks into electrical sockets. According to Jenee, Jedidiah denied harming himself, and Jenee saw no evidence the allegations were true. Since Jedidiah had been living with Jenee, Father had not visited, had not provided Jedidiah with any of his belongings, and had not provided Jenee with any paperwork that would permit her to enroll the child in school or seek medical attention for him. Jenee reported Father was a "functioning drug addict" whose drug of choice was methamphetamine.
On August 8, 2023 the Department social worker interviewed Donnie De Leon, the director of community relations for the veterans' housing community where Father lived. De Leon stated Father had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia. Father's behavior became more aggressive and erratic beginning in April 2023. Father was seen turning over picnic tables, breaking crosswalk lights, and yelling and cursing at neighbors. At some point Father started saying Jedidiah was a ghost and a zombie. Father was placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. While Father was hospitalized, staff of the veterans' housing community (which owned the home in which Father lived) inspected Father's home. They found substantial damage to the home, including windows that had been shot out with a gun, a smashed stove, and broken pipes. The bathroom door had been glued shut with caulking, a chain lock had been installed on the outside of Jedidiah's bedroom, and it appeared Father had burned some of Jedidiah's clothing in the backyard. Methamphetamine paraphernalia was found in the home, in addition to "baggies of [a] substance" believed to be methamphetamine. In late August the veteran's home evicted Father; a veteran's organization offered Father substance abuse treatment and mental health services, but he refused.
The exact timing of Father's hospitalization is not clear from the record, but it appears to have been between April and August 2023.
Jedidiah told the Department social worker that he wanted to continue living with his aunt. He said Father was not physically aggressive toward him, but Jedidiah was sometimes scared of Father because his moods could change "in a split second." Father once punched a hole in the wall when he was angry. Jedidiah denied he did the things Father had reported to the psychiatric hospital and that had resulted in Jedidiah's hospitalization. Jedidiah was not aware of any drug use by Father.
The Department was unable to make contact with Father prior to the detention hearing.
B. The Petition and Detention
On September 13, 2023 the Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The petition alleged Father had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of methamphetamine. It also alleged Father had a history of mental and emotional problems. As a result, Father was incapable of providing regular care and supervision to Jedidiah. The petition also alleged Father left Jedidiah with Jenee without making an appropriate plan for the child's ongoing care and supervision.
At the detention hearing on September 14, 2023, Jedidiah was detained from Father. The juvenile court ordered reunification services and monitored visitation for Father.
C. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report and Hearing
The Department social worker interviewed Father on September 26, 2023. Father admitted he used "crystal meth" before Jedidiah was born but denied having an addiction. He completed a substance abuse program shortly before Jedidiah was born and claimed he had not used any substances since then. However, Father then admitted he used crystal methamphetamine in 2021 when Jedidiah was staying with family members. Father had not completed a substance abuse program since his relapse. When asked about the drug paraphernalia found in his home, Father did not deny the items were his, instead complaining that the veterans' program staff had no permission to be in his home. Father stated the damage found in his home was due to remodeling projects.
Jenee stated Father had been using drugs on and off since they were young. In 2021 Jedidiah stayed with Jenee for approximately a week because Father had been hospitalized after using a "cocktail" of drugs. Jedidiah continued to deny having seen Father under the influence of drugs but stated that Father had "mood swings."
At the December 4, 2023 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the allegation Father left Jedidiah with Jenee without making an appropriate plan. The court sustained the remaining allegations regarding Father's substance abuse and mental health issues. The court found Jenee's statements regarding Father's mental health and drug use to be "incredibly credible." The court declared Jedidiah a dependent of the court and removed him from Father's custody. The court ordered monitored visitation for Father and ordered him to complete a full drug and alcohol program with aftercare, undergo weekly drug testing, complete a psychiatric evaluation, enroll in mental health counseling, and take all prescribed psychotropic medication.
Father timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
A. Governing Law and Standard of Review
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction when "[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of any of the following: [¶] (A) The failure or inability of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child. [¶] (B) The willful or negligent failure of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left. [¶] (C) The willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. [¶] (D) The inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse."
"A jurisdiction finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three elements: (1) the parent's or guardian's neglectful conduct or failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness." (In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601 (Cole L.); accord, In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848; In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624 ["section 300(b)(1) authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or inability to supervise or protect her child"].)
"Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing [citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child." (Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601602; accord, In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238 ["'Although there must be a present risk of harm to the minor, the juvenile court may consider past events to determine whether the child is presently in need of juvenile court protection.'"].) "A parent's '"[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions" if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.'" (Cole L., at p. 602; accord, In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1048.)
Upon finding a child is a dependent of the juvenile court, the court "may direct any reasonable orders to the parents . . . as the court deems necessary and proper," including requiring participation in counseling, education and treatment programs. (§ 362, subd. (d); see In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311 ["'[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly'"]; In re Daniel B. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 663, 673 [same].)
We review the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892; In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633 ["'In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them.'"].) Substantial evidence is "evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value." (In re I.C., at p. 892; accord, Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 602.) "'[W]e draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.'" (In re R.T., at p. 633; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; Cole L., at p. 602 ["while substantial evidence may consist of inferences, any inferences must rest on the evidence; inferences based on speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding"].) "The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or orders." (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206; accord, In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328-329.)
We review the juvenile court's disposition orders, including those directing a parent to participate in counseling, education, and treatment programs, for an abuse of discretion. (In re K.T. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 20, 25; In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1071; In re Briana V., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311.)
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Substance Abuse Finding Under Section 300, Subdivision (b)(1)
Father contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings regarding substance abuse because the evidence was speculative and circumstantial. Father argues the Department never tested the drug-like substance found in Father's home to confirm it was methamphetamine and there was no evidence Jedidiah or Jenee had seen Father in possession of drugs or under the influence. Contrary to Father's assertions, however, there is substantial evidence of Father's drug use. (See County of Kern v. Jadwin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 65, 72-73 ["substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom"].)
Father acknowledges the unchallenged jurisdiction finding regarding his mental health provides an independent basis for affirming dependency jurisdiction over Jedidiah regardless of any alleged error in the finding of substance abuse. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283-284 ["where there are multiple findings against one parent[,] the validity of one finding may render moot the parent's attempt to challenge the others"]; In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452 ["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."].) However, as the Supreme Court recently held in In re D.P., at page 283, "where a jurisdictional finding 'serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal' [citation], the appeal is not moot." Because the jurisdiction finding of substance abuse serves, at least in part, as the basis of the disposition order requiring Father to attend a substance abuse treatment program, his challenge to the finding is not moot. We therefore consider the merits of Father's appeal.
Father admitted he had a history of methamphetamine use, although he denied using it since his relapse in 2021. However, Father's relapse was serious enough to result in his hospitalization, and he did not enroll after that time in a substance treatment program. Father did not deny that the "baggies" of a drug-like substance and drug paraphernalia were found in his home, nor did he have any explanation for their presence there. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the juvenile court to infer Father was again abusing methamphetamine. (See In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 105 [presence of drug paraphernalia in the home supported inference of drug use].) That inference is further supported by Father's recent aggressive and erratic behavior. While such behavior could be explained by his deteriorating mental health, it was a reasonable inference that Father's methamphetamine use contributed to his conduct, especially given that he was hospitalized within months of the veterans' housing community finding evidence of methamphetamine use in his home.
It is also significant that Father's paranoia and erratic behavior was at least partially directed toward Jedidiah, whom Father described as a zombie or a ghost. Father burned some of Jedidiah's clothing, placed a chain lock on the outside of Jedidiah's bedroom, and had Jedidiah placed in a psychiatric hospital under apparently false pretenses. This behavior supported the inference Jedidiah was at substantial risk of danger in Father's care. (See Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 601-602 ["the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child"].)
C. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Requiring Father To Complete a Substance Abuse Treatment Program
Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering him to complete a full substance abuse treatment program with aftercare because it "places unnecessary stress on [F]ather to complete services that are not related to the legitimate protective issues in this case." The court did not abuse its discretion.
"Juvenile courts should be mindful of the burdens their disposition orders impose on parents already grappling with difficult conditions and circumstances. However, the paramount concern always must be the child's best interests, and we cannot reverse a disposition order reasonably fashioned to eliminate the conditions that led to dependency jurisdiction, no matter how burdensome its requirements may seem from the parent's perspective." (In re D.P., supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at pp. 10711072.)
As discussed, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that Jedidiah was at substantial risk of harm based on Father's substance abuse. Accordingly, requiring completion of a substance abuse treatment program was a reasonable requirement to protect Jedidiah.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdiction finding and disposition order are affirmed.
We concur: MARTINEZ, P. J., SEGAL, J.