Opinion
B329828
09-26-2024
In re NERIAH W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. COURTNEY W., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 23CCJP00253 Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FEUER, J.
Courtney W. (Mother) appeals from the jurisdiction findings and disposition order declaring 18-month-old Neriah W. a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), after the court sustained allegations Neriah was at substantial risk of serious harm because Mother had medically neglected the child, was a current abuser of marijuana, had a history of mental and emotional problems, and had engaged in domestic violence with Neriah's father, Dontae A. (Father). The juvenile court also sustained allegations against Father, which he has not appealed. Because jurisdiction over Neriah will continue based on the sustained allegations against Father regardless of the outcome of this appeal, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Referral and Investigation
On December 20, 2022 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral stating then-11-month-old Neriah had untreated eczema, causing discomfort and bleeding. Mother had refused to take Neriah to the emergency room for treatment. ~(CT 21)~
A Department social worker visited Mother and Neriah the following day and found Neriah had rashes and scabs on her inner elbows and a large lesion with open skin, some bleeding, and white spots behind her left knee. Neriah appeared to be in pain while the social worker examined the lesion. ~(CT 26)~ Mother explained Neriah had suffered from eczema since birth, it was normal, and it would heal on its own. ~(CT 21)~
A nurse practitioner examined Neriah in early January 2023 and told the social worker she was very concerned that Neriah was being medically neglected and Mother was minimizing the severity of Neriah's condition. ~(CT 27)~ The nurse noted multiple open wounds and scabs on Neriah's arms and legs, and she sent Neriah to the emergency room for wound care. ~(CT 37)~
Mother told the social worker she smoked marijuana "all the time," but she denied it impaired her ability to care for Neriah. Mother claimed she never smoked in front of Neriah. Instead, she would go into the garage while Neriah stayed in the bedroom playing on a blanket or watching cartoons. ~(CT 22, 38)~ There were no other caregivers who assisted with Neriah's care. ~(CT 38)~
Mother had a history of chronic manic depression but was not currently receiving mental health treatment. She stated she was able to manage her symptoms on her own, including by smoking marijuana. ~(CT 22-23)~ She had suicidal ideations in the past but not since Neriah was born. ~(CT 23)~
B. The Petition and First Amended Petition
On January 23, 2023 the Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b). ~(CT 6)~ The petition alleged Mother had medically neglected Neriah by failing to seek medical treatment and to apply prescribed medication for Neriah's skin infection, which caused "multiple scabs, dry skin, rashes, and bleeding open lesions." ~(CT 8)~ Further, Mother had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of marijuana and had a history of mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of chronic manic depression, all of which rendered her incapable of providing regular care and supervision to Neriah. ~(CT 8-9)~ Finally, Mother "created a detrimental and endangering home environment" by "permit[ing] non-related adults, who the mother knew [had] a history of illicit drug use . . ., to reside in the home ...." ~(CT 9)~
At the detention hearing on January 24, 2023, Neriah was released to Mother under the supervision of the Department on the conditions that she undergo weekly drug testing and continue residing in her current shelter placement. ~(CT 67, 75-76)~
On February 15, 2023 the Department filed a first amended petition that included the previous allegations against Mother and three new allegations: Mother and Father had a history of violent physical altercations, including when Mother was pregnant with Neriah; Father had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of marijuana and alcohol; Mother was aware of Father's substance abuse and allowed Father unlimited access to Neriah; and Father had a history of mental and emotional problems, including diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. ~(CT79, 82-83)~
C. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
In early February 2023 the social worker met with Mother and examined Neriah. Neriah continued to have eczema and healing scabs, as well as red and white patches on parts of her body, but the social worker did not observe any bleeding or open skin. Mother had not applied Neriah's prescription cream to Neriah that day, and Mother acknowledged she skipped some days and only applied the cream when Neriah appeared uncomfortable. ~(CT 123, 125)~
Mother admitted she had smoked marijuana when she was pregnant with Neriah. She continued to smoke marijuana two or three times a day after Neriah was born but claimed she had always been outside and at least six feet away from the baby. ~(CT 125-126)~ A couple of times Mother left Neriah in the car with the door open, then smoked outside. Mother asserted her marijuana use did not affect her ability to care for Neriah. ~(CT 125)~
Mother told the social worker she had not had a "depression episode" since she was a teenager. However, she had a mental breakdown when she was required to leave a shelter in November 2022 and again in January 2023 when Neriah was temporarily removed from her custody. She "just cried and held [her] baby," and she "[did not] want to get out of bed, [did not] want to do anything." Mother did not believe she needed mental health treatment because she had healthy coping mechanisms. ~(CT 125-126)~
Mother admitted she had two physical altercations with Father while she was pregnant, but she claimed she acted in selfdefense. ~(CT 126)~ Mother and Father ended their relationship before Neriah was born. Father had not been involved with Neriah's care since Neriah was five months old. ~(CT 132)~ As of March 2023, Father was incarcerated. ~(CT 113)~
On February 6, 2023 Mother told the social worker she had not used marijuana for the past month. ~(CT 125, 146)~ However, in late February 2023 Mother was asked to leave her shelter placement because she tested positive for marijuana and did not follow the shelter's rules regarding waking up for breakfast and completing chores. ~(CT 239)~ At the urging of the social worker, Mother was allowed to stay. ~(CT 240)~ Ultimately, Mother was asked to leave the shelter in early March 2023 for not following the rules. ~(CT 289)~ With the help of the Department Mother was able to move into a residential treatment facility with Neriah. ~(CT 290)~
D. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
At the continued June 2, 2023 jurisdiction and disposition hearing the juvenile court dismissed the allegation Mother had created a detrimental and endangering home environment by allowing non-related individuals to live in the home, as well as the allegation Mother had failed to protect Neriah from Father's substance abuse. The court sustained the remaining allegations against Mother. The court also sustained the allegations against Father, although it struck a reference to Father's arrest after a domestic violence incident. ~(CT 375)~
The court declared Neriah a dependent of the court and ordered her placed in Mother's home under the supervision of the Department on the condition Mother continue to reside in the residential treatment facility or another residence approved by the Department. ~(CT 376)~ The court ordered family maintenance services for Mother and ordered Mother to submit to weekly drug tests and to enroll in a domestic violence support group for victims, parenting classes, and individual counseling. The court further ordered the Department to refer Mother for a psychoeducational assessment and assessment for postpartum depression. Mother was ordered to comply with any recommendations made following those assessments and to take any prescribed psychotropic medications. ~(RT 96-97)~
The court removed Neriah from Father and ordered monitored visitation for Father. ~(CT 376, 379)~ Mother timely appealed.
On August 1, 2023 the Department filed a supplemental petition against Mother pursuant to section 387. At a hearing on August 2 the juvenile court removed Neriah from Mother's care. ~(8/2/23 Minute Order at pp. 1-2)~ On September 28 the court sustained the allegation against Mother in the supplemental petition based on Mother's no contest plea. ~(9/28/23 Minute Order at p. 2)~ The court declared Neriah a dependent of the court and removed her from Mother's custody. ~(9/28/23 Minute Order at p. 2)~ On March 21, 2024 the court terminated reunification services for Mother, and Mother has not appealed that order. (See In re Michael H. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1373 ["[T]he general rule in juvenile dependency cases is that all orders (except for an order setting a section 366.26 hearing), starting chronologically with the dispositional order, are appealable without limitation." ~(3/21/24 Minute Order at p. 2)~ On our own motion we augment the record to include the August 2, 2023, September 28, 2023, and March 21, 2024 minute orders. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
DISCUSSION
A. Mootness and Dependency Appeals
"A court is tasked with the duty '"to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it."'" (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.).) "A case becomes moot when events '"render[ ] it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to grant [the plaintiff] any effect[ive] relief."' [Citation.] For relief to be 'effective,' two requirements must be met. First, the plaintiff must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the plaintiff seeks." (Ibid.) In other words, "relief is effective when it 'can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status.' [Citation.] It follows that, to show a need for effective relief, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she has suffered from a change in legal status." (Id. at p. 277.) "Although a jurisdictional finding that a parent engaged in abuse or neglect of a child is generally stigmatizing, complaining of 'stigma' alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal. The stigma must be paired with some effect on the plaintiff's legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision." (Ibid.)
Even where an appeal is moot, however, "courts may exercise their 'inherent discretion' to reach the merits of the dispute." (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 282.) As the Supreme Court explained in D.P., reviewing courts will generally exercise their discretion when the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties, or a material question remains for the court to determine. (Ibid.) The court also identified additional factors reviewing courts may evaluate when considering whether to exercise their discretion to decide a moot case, including whether a challenged jurisdiction finding could impact current or future dependency proceedings, and the nature of the allegations against the parent (with more egregious findings showing a parent's greater interest in challenging the findings). (Id. at pp. 285-286.) In addition, courts may consider why the appeal became moot; for example, principles of fairness may favor discretionary review of cases rendered moot "by the prompt compliance or otherwise laudable behavior of the parent challenging the jurisdictional finding on appeal." (Id. at p. 286.) "It would perversely incentivize noncompliance if mootness doctrine resulted in the availability of appeals from jurisdictional findings only for parents who are less compliant or for whom the court has issued additional orders." (Ibid.)
B. The Unchallenged Jurisdiction Findings as to Father Render Mother's Appeal Moot
Mother's appeal challenges only the jurisdiction findings as to her. She does not challenge the disposition order, nor has Father challenged the jurisdiction findings against him. The unchallenged jurisdiction findings against Father provide a sufficient and independent basis for affirming dependency jurisdiction over Neriah regardless of any alleged error in the findings against Mother. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at 283 ["'"[a]s long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate"'"]; In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308 ["'[A] jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [the minor] within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent.'"]; In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492 [same].) Accordingly, reversal would have no effect on the court's jurisdiction over Neriah. Because we can provide no effective relief to Mother-that is, relief that "'can have a practical and tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status'" (D.P., at p. 277)-her appeal is moot.
Mother argues we should exercise our discretion to reach the merits of her appeal because findings against her could impact future dependency proceedings. ~(AOB p. 25)~ (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285 [appellate courts have discretion whether to "decide certain challenges to juvenile court jurisdictional findings, notwithstanding mootness"].) However, her claim of speculative future harm is unpersuasive. Even if we were to reverse the jurisdiction findings against Mother, a court in a future dependency or family court proceeding could still consider the underlying facts, which Mother does not dispute. Specifically, Mother does not dispute that Neriah had untreated wounds, Mother used marijuana every day when she was the sole caregiver for Neriah, Mother had untreated mental health issues, and Mother engaged in domestic violence with Neriah's Father (although Mother maintained she acted in self-defense). All of these facts would be admissible in any future proceedings involving Mother. (See, e.g., In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 330 [declining to exercise discretion to consider mother's challenge to allegation that she spanked child because the substance of the allegation "would almost certainly be available in any future dependency or family court proceeding, regardless of any determination on our part as to whether it formed an independent basis for juvenile court jurisdiction"].) Mother has not pointed to any other factor justifying our reaching the merits of the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
We concur: MARTINEZ, P. J. SEGAL, J.