Opinion
B330085
04-24-2024
In re L.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. C.J., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Anuradha Khemka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 23CCJP00588A, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Reversed in part and dismissed in part.
Anuradha Khemka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILEY, J.
C.J. is the father of infant L.M. The trial court found C.J. was the biological father of L.M. and failed to protect her. The father appealed these orders. The trial court later found C.J. was the presumed father and placed L.M. with him. We reverse the jurisdictional finding against the father and grant the motion of the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services to dismiss the appeal as to the paternity finding as moot.
I
We lay out the relevant factual and procedural background.
The father has known Y.M., the mother, for about four to five years. Although the father lived with the mother for about a year, the father described the relationship as a "booty call" and the mother described it as "friends with benefits." While they lived together, they cooked separately, watched television separately, and the father would not help the mother out. The mother stated she was unsure of the father's real name and just knew him as Zazz.
The mother became pregnant after they were living together. The parties disagree on when the mother told the father about the pregnancy and his reaction. They agree he went to the hospital when the mother was giving birth, but because the mother's friend was already in the delivery room, medical staff would not let him in the room. The mother would not let the father sign the birth certificate.
The father visited the mother and watched L.M. while the mother rested and did chores, but the parties disagree on the frequency of the visits. The father stated the visits were on the mother's terms and only when she allowed. The mother did not permit him to take L.M. to his home.
The mother has two older children. The mother has lost custody to these children at various times due to mental health issues and domestic violence between her and their father and her and other family members. The mother has struggled with mental health issues since her late teens and has been on medication since about that time. She has been hospitalized several times over the years.
When L.M. was about five months old, the mother called the fire department. She said she had been taking off her acrylic nails and burned herself on a nearby candle. When the firefighters arrived, the mother continued saying she had burns on her body, but she did not. The mother was rambling and not making sense. The firefighters observed that L.M. was in a urine-soaked diaper and appeared dehydrated.
Paramedics took the mother and L.M. to the hospital. Medical personnel determined the mother was having a mental health crisis and hospitalized her in a psychiatric unit but did not put her on a psychiatric hold. At her request, upon discharge, the mother went to a clinic to enroll in outpatient counseling.
Medical personnel cleared L.M. The Department detained her from the mother's care and placed her into foster care. The mother refused to provide the father's contact information. The Department filed a petition alleging the mother's mental health issues rendered her incapable of caring for L.M.
Eventually the Department contacted the father. A social worker asked the father if he knew about the mother's mental health problems. The father responded, "[f]rom day one," stating the mother would fall asleep without taking medication and had thrown things on a handful of occasions. The father knew the mother received monthly injections of medication to manage her mental health issues. The father stated the mother was a good mother to L.M. and always behaved appropriately with her. The Department filed an amended petition alleging the father knew about the mother's mental health issues and failed to protect L.M. from them.
At a hearing, the juvenile court found the father was a biological father only because, although he held himself out as the father, he had not brought the child into his home.
At the adjudication hearing, the mother pleaded no contest to a stipulated version of the amended petition. The father argued that he had not known the mother had mental health issues that would put L.M. at risk nor the power to do anything to control the mother. The court sustained the petition against both parents.
At the disposition hearing, the court stated it did not yet have the father's verified form of voluntary declaration of parentage but would be open to finding the father L.M.'s presumed father once it received it. It therefore affirmed its finding that the father was the biological father only. It further found it would be detrimental to place L.M. with the father. The court continued L.M.'s placement in foster care and ordered reunification services for both parents.
The father appealed the jurisdiction and disposition orders, including the paternity finding. The mother did not appeal.
At later hearings, the juvenile court found the father to be the presumed father and placed L.M. with him. We grant the parties' respective unopposed requests that we take judicial notice of the minute orders reflecting these events.
II
The Department filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to the issue of paternity as moot. The father filed a letter informing the court he did not oppose the motion. We grant the Department's motion.
III
We turn to the only remaining issue in this case: whether the juvenile court properly sustained the allegation that the father knew of the mother's mental health problems and failed to protect L.M. We hold it did not.
We review the juvenile court's finding for substantial evidence. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)
As discussed above, when the Department interviewed the father, he said from day one he knew that the mother had mental health problems because she would fall asleep without medication and threw things a few times. He also was aware she took medication for her mental health issues. This is the sole evidence regarding what the father knew about the mother's mental health problems before the incident with the candle. This does not constitute substantial evidence the father knew the mother's mental health problems posed a risk to L.M. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 51 [substantial evidence does not equate to any evidence].)
From this very limited information, we cannot tell whether these incidents occurred close in time to L.M.'s birth or at the beginning of the father's association with the mother. However, even if they happened later in the parents' acquaintance, the character of these minor incidents is insufficient to show an awareness on the father's part of a mental health problem that would pose a risk to the child. The father said he had only observed the mother to be a good mother and to act appropriately with L.M.
The Department states the father also said he worried about the mother's ability to care for the child and considered calling the Department, but the Department's report does not connect these comments to a concern about the mother's mental health.
The Department also points out the father "admitted" he tried to convince the mother to stop taking her medication. In fact, the father said the mother told him she did not know what her medication was for and he encouraged her to read about it before taking it. This general advice hardly shows the father poses a risk to L.M., particularly coupled with the absence of record evidence that the father knew about the mother's mental health issues beyond falling asleep and throwing things infrequently.
Finally, the Department argues the father's denial of the mother's mental health issues means he will be unable to protect L.M. Denial is different than lack of knowledge. Aware now of the extent of the mother's mental health issues, the father has acknowledged the mother must ensure these issues are under control before she will be able to care for L.M. The record contains no evidence the father would fail to protect L.M. from dangers of which he is aware.
DISPOSITION
We reverse the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings against the father and dismiss the father's appeal as to the paternity finding as moot.
We concur: STRATTON, P. J., GRIMES, J.