Opinion
B317707
02-22-2023
In re E.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. KAYLA D., 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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 21CCJP05129A, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Dismissed.
Anuradha Khemka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHAVEZ, J.
Kayla D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders, which declared E.D. (born June 2020) a dependent of the court and removed him from her custody pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.Mother's appointed counsel filed a brief setting out the applicable facts and law, but raising no issues, and asking that mother be allowed to file her own brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 841-846. Counsel has also filed a declaration informing the court that no arguable issues were found after an examination of the record and stating that copy of the brief and the appellate record has been provided to mother. As set forth more fully below, a supplemental letter brief submitted for filing by mother does not show good cause that an arguable issue exists. We thus dismiss mother's appeal.
All further unattributed code sections are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2021, a protective custody warrant issued by the juvenile court was served on parents to detain E.D. from mother's home, allowing him to remain in father's home pending a detention hearing and order of the court. In its report for the court hearing regarding the child's detention, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family services (DCFS) reported that it had received a referral on October 8, 2021, indicating that father had left the home with E.D. out of fear for the child's safety due to mother's erratic and aggressive behavior. After investigating the referral, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1) alleging that E.D. was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of the willful or negligent failure of his parent to adequately supervise or protect the child and the inability of a parent to provide regular care due to mental illness. The petition included the following factual allegations against mother:
"The child['s] mother [Kayla D.] has mental and emotional problems, including a mental health diagnosis and paranoid behavior, which renders the mother incapable of providing the child with regular care and supervision. On 10/26/21, the mother drove a vehicle erratically with the child and father as passengers causing the father to be afraid for the safety of himself and the child. On 10/08/21, the mother was hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of the mother's psychiatric condition. On 10/07/21 and 10/08/21, law enforcement responded to the family home due to the mother's mental health. The mother failed to participate in consistent treatment for the mother's mental and emotional problems and failed to take the mother's psychotropic medication as prescribed."
The allegations regarding father are not quoted as they were later stricken from the petition.
At the detention hearing the juvenile court appointed counsel for both parents, and they entered general denials to the petition. The court had read and considered the DCFS detention report and found a prima facie showing that E.D. was a person described under section 300 and that reasonable efforts had been provided to prevent removal. The court also found Samuel D. (father) to be the presumed father. The court ordered E.D. detained from parents, placed in DCFS custody, and released to father with monitored visits for mother. The order specified services to be offered to mother and assessments to arrange. An adjudication and disposition hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2021.
The hearing went forward remotely on December 14, 2021. The court found proper notice was given to parents, but mother was not present. Father was present, and both parents were represented by counsel. The petition was amended to delete the allegations against father, and without objection the court admitted the three exhibits proffered by DCFS: the detention report, the last minute report filed November 10, 2021, and the jurisdiction/disposition report filed December 1, 2021.
Mother's counsel called mother five times and e-mailed her during the proceedings, and when she received no response, counsel unsuccessfully requested a continuance to obtain mother's presence.
Mother did not submit evidence, but her counsel informed the court of mother's position, stating that she denied any mental health issues or a mental health diagnosis, and believed all negative statements about her were lies. Counsel stated that mother had recently begun individual counseling and a parenting class and was willing to continue with them, but would ask that the court not order a psychiatric evaluation or that she be required to take medication. Mother had asked her to inform the court that she was very holistic and did not take medication.
The reports in evidence showed that DCFS became involved with the family on October 8, 2021, after father called T.L. (maternal grandfather) to their home to help mother, and then left with E.D. Maternal grandfather needed to call 911, and responding officers found mother at 3:00 a.m. in an upstairs flooded bathroom, naked, pounding on walls and screaming. Maternal grandfather had to pry open the door to the bathroom, where he found mother throwing water over from a bucket, and a bathtub full of clothes soaking in water. Paramedics transported mother to a hospital where she was placed on a mental health hold, stabilized on medication and then transferred to a psychiatric treatment hospital. Mother was released from that hospital the following day with a prescription for psychotropic medication, and she went to live with maternal grandmother, who conditioned the stay on mother's taking her medication, but mother stopped after two pills.
On October 18, 2021, mother took E.D. from father's home, taking with her some of her clothes and E.D.'s clothes, without telling father where she went. Law enforcement officers found them at a hotel, conducted a welfare check, and told father they were safe. Two days later, father retrieved E.D. from mother at the maternal grandparents' home. On October 26, 2021, when father allowed mother to visit, she put E.D. into her car. Father also got into the car and refused mother's demands that he get out. Mother then drove erratically, and, afraid for their safety, father called 911 and leapt out of the car with E.D. at a red light. The social worker attempted to speak with mother, but mother refused to engage.
Mother spoke to the DCFS investigator the following month, denied she was driving erratically on October 26, 2021, claiming that she was distracted by a smell in the car. Mother claimed that the night that law enforcement came to her home in October, she was showering and listening to music when suddenly police officers and maternal grandfather were in the bathroom. She said she had no idea why the police were called, and being naked in front of strangers caused her to become extremely upset and agitated. After maternal grandfather covered her with a blanket, she was taken to the hospital for three days, diagnosed with what she called "questionable" bipolar disorder, and given a prescription for a psychotropic medication, which she admitted that did not take. Mother denied that her agitation and yelling was directed toward hospital staff when they tried to sedate her, claiming that she was yelling at the police.
Maternal grandmother, a registered nurse, told the social worker that a nurse at the hospital informed her that mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Mother knew of the diagnosis and asked maternal grandmother not to tell anyone because "[t]hey'll think I'm crazy." Maternal grandmother reported that beginning when she was a child, mother displayed "manic behavior, flights of ideas, . . . fabrication of stories [and] episodes of paranoia." They did not seek treatment because she was not out of control and there was no family consensus that she needed help. Mother was allowed to live with maternal grandparents after the detention order on condition she take her medication, but mother refused.
The juvenile court stated that it had read and considered the reports and argument of counsel, sustained the amended petition, declared E.D. a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and proceeded to disposition. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that E.D. could not safely be returned to mother and that DCFS had made reasonable efforts to prevent removal. E.D. remained released to father with monitored visits for mother. The court entered several orders for the safety of the child and signed a court ordered disposition case plan, with referrals to be given to mother by DCFS for assistance in complying with the plan, which included submitting to a psychiatric evaluation and taking any prescribed psychotropic medications. The court scheduled a review hearing for June 14, 2022.
Both mother and father denied having any Native American ancestry, and the court found the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Welf. &Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b)) to be inapplicable.
On January 3, 2022, mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the adjudication and disposition orders.
DISCUSSION
After she was informed of her counsel's brief, mother submitted a supplemental letter brief, which has been marked as received but not filed pending our review for good cause.
In her supplemental letter brief, mother contends that she has shown the existence of arguable issues for appellate review and therefore good cause to file a brief. (See In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 845.) Mother expresses her disagreement with some of the evidence relied on by the juvenile court, as well as with the court's conclusions. Mother claims that she has not been diagnosed with a mental health disorder and that as of March 2022 three postjudgment psychiatric assessments confirmed that she had no mental health disorder or mental health issues. Mother states that she has "completed court ordered recommendations, including individual counseling, mental health counseling, a psychiatric evaluation, and parenting education classes, including child safety and child development," and that all reports have been provided to DCFS and the juvenile court. Mother also claims that her counseling has addressed the domestic violence she had suffered, including one occasion on which father strangled her. We do not review the court's ruling by reference to evidence produced later. (People v. Avila (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 771, 780, fn. 4.) Thus, these claims do not present arguable issues for review.
This claim was reported to the social worker, who included it in the jurisdiction/disposition report.
On our own motion we take judicial notice of minute orders received from the juvenile court on November 17, 2022, relating to hearings on June 3 and 14, and July 5, 11 and 12, 2022. The orders show that the juvenile court received reports, conducted a review hearing pursuant to section 654 and a juvenile custody hearing; and on July 12, 2022, the court signed a juvenile custody order granting father sole physical custody and joint legal custody with mother. The court ordered monitored visits with mother and terminated jurisdiction.
Mother also contends that her parental and custodial rights were violated by DCFS and the juvenile court because, in essence, the court's findings were wrong and its orders unreasonable. And finally, she asserts that the DCFS and the juvenile court were "not within jurisdiction according to the . . . Welfare and Institutions Code[]," sections 300, subdivisions (a)-(j), 361, subdivisions (a) and (c)(1), and 362, subdivision (a). However, mother has failed to provide any reasoned legal argument or authority showing that any of the juvenile court's rulings may constitute reversible error or that the juvenile court or DCFS lacked jurisdiction in this matter. We thus deem the appeal abandoned and dismiss it. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J., HOFFSTADT, J.