Opinion
B326686
04-26-2024
In re M.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. D.R., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Maria Leftwich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Nos. 22CCJP02645, 22CCJP02645A-C, Tiana J. Murillo, Judge.
Maria Leftwich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
COLLINS, ACTING P. J.
INTRODUCTION
After officers found an unlocked, loaded firearm within reach of nine-year-old C. and three-year-old L., the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over the children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The children's mother, appellant D.R. (mother), challenges that finding of jurisdiction, asserting there was no risk to the children at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. We find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings, and therefore affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Detention
M., age 17, C., age 9, and L., age 3, came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on June 14, 2022 when officers from the probation department investigation unit did a compliance check on the children's uncle, Albert, who lived with the children's father, who was also on probation. Father lived in the front house on the property, and mother lived in the back house. During a search of mother's home, investigators found an unlocked, loaded 9mm firearm under mother's mattress, which was accessible to the children. A second handgun and "various types of rifle ammunition" were also in a locked safe in mother's closet. Father was arrested.
A children's social worker (CSW) arrived while the probation investigators were present. Mother told the CSW that the two younger children slept in the back house with her, but they went to the front house to cook and eat. Mother said M. was 18 and did not live in the home. Mother acknowledged that she had firearms, but said they were always stored locked. When the CSW pointed out that officers found the handgun unlocked and under her mattress, mother said she had a Second Amendment right to have the gun.
The CSW spoke with the children. C. said she sleeps in the front house with her paternal grandmother. C. denied any drugs or violence in the home, said she was not aware of any firearms in the home, and said she felt safe there. L. told the CSW that father had a small gun in his truck. L. reported feeling safe in the home. Neither child showed signs of abuse or neglect.
The CSW also spoke with father at the scene. When the CSW asked about the handgun in mother's bedroom, father responded that mother had a Second Amendment right to have the gun. In addition to the arrest on June 14, father also had been arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm on April 6 and June 4, 2022. Father was a methamphetamine user, but said he had been clean since June 3. Mother said she did not know that father had been arrested recently for firearm violations. Father's probation officer said that father recently admitted using methamphetamine and enrolled in a detox program, but left without participating in the drug treatment portion of the program as required by his probation.
The CSW spoke with M. by phone a few days later, after discovering that M. was still a minor. M. lived with a paternal aunt (she had a different father than C. and L.), and she was enrolled in college. M. reported no concerns about the safety of mother's home.
The family had a DCFS history, including a voluntary family maintenance case from July 21, 2020 to January 28, 2021. That case arose from a June 2020 allegation of general neglect with respect to father, who had firearms in the home accessible to the children when mother left the children in his care. Other referrals to DCFS included a June 2021 report that mother left the younger children in the care of M. while she went to Mexico; the allegation of neglect was deemed unfounded. In June 2020 a reporter stated that the children were present when father and an uncle engaged in a violent domestic dispute; the allegation was "evaluated out." In May 2020 a reporter alleged that mother would leave the children home alone and return intoxicated, or would drive with the children while intoxicated. The allegation was deemed inconclusive. Reports regarding domestic violence between mother and father in January and September 2015 were deemed unfounded. A report of domestic abuse between mother and M.'s father in 2008 was deemed inconclusive.
Mother agreed to a safety plan stating that all guns must be stored locked or kept in a locked safe. The officers conducting the probation check confiscated the firearms they found. On July 6, 2022, mother told the CSW that she had filed a restraining order against father, because "it was more cost effective to file for a restraining order than for a divorce." DCFS found the family to be at a "very high" risk of future general neglect due to mother allowing the children access to a firearm and access to father, a drug abuser who also possessed firearms.
On July 8, 2022, DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). Counts b-1 and j-1 alleged that mother "created a detrimental and endangering home environment" for C. and L. because she "possessed an unsecured, loaded 9mm firearm in the children's home and within access of the children." At a detention hearing on July 22, 2022, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for jurisdiction, detained the children from father, and released the children to mother.
Counts b-2 and b-3 related to substance abuse by the parents. These counts were dismissed and are not at issue in this appeal, so we do not discuss the evidence relating to those allegations. The petition also included M. and the court initially found a prima facie case regarding M. However, the parties later agreed that because M. lived elsewhere and was nearly an adult, the petition should be dismissed as to her.
B. Jurisdiction and disposition
According to the jurisdiction/disposition report filed on August 23, 2022, the children continued living with mother. C. told the CSW she felt safe with mother and believed her mother's guns to be stored in a locked safe. L. was difficult to interview, but reported that father had a gun. L. slept in the back house with mother, and C. slept in the front house with paternal grandmother. The back house had a refrigerator but no stove; mother said they cooked in the kitchen in the front house. Father's whereabouts were purportedly unknown, but the CSW suspected he was staying on the property with the family.
Mother said that when the officers arrived for the probation search, father was in the back house using her shower. Mother said she told the officers about her guns, and told them that the one under her mattress was locked with "the manufacturer['s] lock." Mother said there had been "a lot of violence in the area," and she was "overprotective" of her children. Mother said the previous CSW told her she had to divorce father or her children would be taken away. Mother said, "I had a locked gun under my mattress, and now I'm a horrible parent. Apparently the child lock was not considered a lock" according to DCFS. Mother said her two guns were still being held at the sheriff's office, and "I have to go through the DOJ and get a gold seal. I may just leave them there because I don't want to deal with this."
Regarding father, mother said she was "shocked" when father was involved in a police chase in 2019, and "I only knew about any substance abuse issues recently." Mother said that she and father had been separated since 2019.
DCFS assessed the family to be at moderate risk of future neglect, noting the previous juvenile court case involving the children's access to firearms, mother's minimization of her actions regarding this case, mother's conflicting statements about the guns being stored in the safe, and the officers' report that the gun under the mattress was not locked.
A last-minute information filed on September 2, 2022 reported an interview with father, who stated that on June 14 he had been in the shower when the officers arrived, and he did not know the gun was in mother's room. Father said that mother is a registered gun owner, and is responsible with her guns.
At the jurisdiction hearing on September 6, 2022, counsel for mother counsel requested that the petition be dismissed because there was no current risk of harm to the children, and the past risk of harm was insufficient to sustain the petition. Mother's counsel noted that the two handguns were legally registered to mother. The guns had been confiscated and had not been returned, so there was no current risk to the children.
Counsel for the children asked that the petition be sustained regarding the firearms because the children "are at risk of physical harm as a result of mom's improper storage of the gun that was found under the mattress." She also noted that father had access to the gun even though it violated the terms of his probation, and there was a family history of safety concerns involving firearms. Counsel for the children noted that otherwise, the children "are doing well with mother. They are well cared for ...."
Counsel for DCFS asked that the petition be sustained in full. She noted that the family's 2020 case also involved firearms accessible to the children. Counsel for DCFS also noted that mother asserted she was entitled to have firearms and minimized the risk to the children.
The court sustained the allegations relating to the firearm. The court noted that there was no dispute that a firearm was found outside the safe where the children could access it, and firearms are a leading cause of death among young children. The court stated that even if mother had a right to own the guns, "you need to lock them up. Having it under a mattress is not safe.... [T]his appears to be a lapse in judgment by mom." Turning to disposition, the court ordered that the children remain in mother's care, and ordered mother to complete a gun safety program.
Mother timely appealed. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the children on June 6, 2023, and entered a juvenile custody order for joint custody to mother and father. Mother filed a request for judicial notice of these orders, and we granted her request.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends there is "no evidence" to support the juvenile court's jurisdiction finding, so the court's order should be reversed. Mother acknowledges, however, that because the juvenile court has terminated jurisdiction, the case is moot and this court cannot provide "effective relief." She asks us to consider her appeal nonetheless. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 282 ["Even when a case is moot, courts may exercise their 'inherent discretion' to reach the merits of the dispute"].)
We agree to exercise our discretion to consider the merits of mother's appeal. Jurisdiction was terminated after the court found that the conditions justifying jurisdiction no longer existed. Mother's compliance with DCFS and her case plan should not undermine her ability to challenge a finding she contends was incorrect. "[T]he speed with which dependency cases are resolved will often render appeals moot. A key feature of juvenile court is expeditious resolution of pending cases." (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 284.) "[W]here, as here, the case becomes moot due to prompt compliance by parents with their case plan, discretionary review may be especially appropriate.... It would perversely incentivize noncompliance if [the] 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." (Id. at p. 286.) We therefore exercise our discretion to consider mother's challenge to the juvenile court's jurisdiction finding.
"'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. "In making this determination, we 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 I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A) is appropriate when "there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer[ ] serious physical harm . . . as a result of . . . [t]he failure or inability of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child." Jurisdiction is appropriate under section 300, subdivision (j) when one sibling falls under the definition of subdivision (b), and "there is a substantial risk" that another sibling "will be abused or neglected." Mother argues that the gun under the mattress was of no risk to the children, because they did not know it was there. However, there is no question that storing an unlocked, loaded firearm where a three-or nine-year-old child could access it presents a substantial risk of physical harm or death to the child and other household members. (See, e.g., In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 995 ["a young child with access to a loaded gun is at substantial risk of serious physical harm"].)
Mother also argues there was no risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing because her two firearms had been confiscated and she had signed a safety plan stating that in the future she would keep all firearms locked. Mother acknowledges that the 2020 dependency case involved firearms within access of the children, but she argues that case involved father's possession of guns, not mother's. She asserts that father's history with guns cannot support jurisdiction here, because to do so "is to unfairly penalize [mother] for the choices and actions of" father. She also argues that "Mother and Father live in separate homes and have been separated since 2019," so father is "a man she doesn't live with and has no control over."
Mother misinterprets the basis of juvenile court jurisdiction and misrepresents the record. First, a finding of jurisdiction is not punishment for a parent; the focus is on the safety of the children: "In the dependency context, the juvenile court intervenes to protect a child, not to punish the parent." (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1233.) Here, the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction not to penalize mother, but rather to ensure that C. and L. were not exposed to the deadly risk of unprotected firearms in their home.
Second, mother is correct that "[a] section 300, subdivision (b) jurisdictional finding may not be based on a single episode of endangering conduct in the absence of evidence that such conduct is likely to reoccur." (In re Yolanda L., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993.). However, "evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions." (Ibid.) Substantial evidence supported a finding that such conduct was likely to recur. The children had access to guns in 2020, and despite the dependency proceeding that terminated in 2021, mother again stored her own loaded and unlocked handgun in a manner that allowed the children access to it. Although mother's guns had been confiscated at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, mother told the CSW that she could get them back if she did the appropriate paperwork. In addition, when the CSW spoke with three-year-old L., she said father had a gun in his truck and she identified the size of it. Mother's gun safe had rifle ammunition in it, which presumably was not for either of mother's two handguns, suggesting that other guns also may have been stored in the house. The evidence therefore suggested the children had been exposed to firearms in the past and could be in the future, and that mother did not gain insight about the proper storage of guns from the previous dependency case. (See, e.g., In re Yolanda L., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 996 ["lack of insight into the danger posed by the loaded gun in the home provided support for the potential of future risk"].)
Moreover, mother's characterization of the evidence about father does not comport with the record. Father lived in the front house, where C. slept and where mother and the children cooked their meals. Father was showering in the back house bathroom on June 14, 2022 when he was arrested for being near mother's firearms in violation of his probation conditions. Father also had been arrested for firearms possession on April 6 and June 4. Moreover, DCFS noted in the jurisdiction/disposition report filed in August 2022 that mother's statements that father was not involved with the children did not appear credible. Due to the previous case involving the children's access to guns, mother's failure to store her handgun safely, L. stating that father had a gun, father's multiple recent arrests for firearm possession, and mother's minimizing or denying father's role with the children, there was substantial evidence to support a finding of an ongoing risk to the physical safety of the children.
In short, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1)(A) and (j).
Mother asserts that the (j) count should be stricken because it pertained to M., who did not live in the home. However, the (j) count named all three children, and after the petition was stricken as to M., the (j) count remained relevant for C. and L.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order is affirmed.
We concur: MORI, J., ZUKIN, J.