Opinion
B298191
06-11-2020
In re C.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. G.R., Defendant and Appellant; C.R., Minor, Respondent.
Stone Busailah, Michael P. Stone, Muna Busailah and Robert Rabe for Defendant and Appellant G.R. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy Counsel Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Department of Children and Family Services. Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent C.R. Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01483A) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Julie Fox Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed. Stone Busailah, Michael P. Stone, Muna Busailah and Robert Rabe for Defendant and Appellant G.R. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy Counsel Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Department of Children and Family Services. Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent C.R. Minor.
____________________
G.R. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders, arguing that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) that father's alcohol abuse placed his 17-year-old son at risk of serious harm. For the reasons stated below, we disagree and affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Mother and father were married and had four children together. C.R. was the youngest child and the only minor still residing with his parents.
The incident which led to the current petition was a fight between the parents in the family home where father kicked mother in the leg. C.R. and his adult sibling heard the fight from another room and called the police. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) interviewed mother, C.R., and his adult sibling, who each reported a long history of abuse of mother by father.
Mother gave a detailed account of father's verbal and physical abuse. She said that the abuse would become physical when father was drunk. Father would punch and kick mother, throw her off the bed, and drag her by her hair. Mother was scared to report the abuse earlier because father was a police officer.
C.R. also gave his account of the abuse he watched his mother endure at the hands of father. Although he did not give specific dates, C.R. witnessed father choke and punch mother and heard her scream during the physical assaults. He also reported that father became more aggressive and angrier when he consumed alcohol. During one incident, father came home drunk, yelled at mother to get out of the house, and then dragged her into the restroom. C.R. said he was scared of his father and did not feel safe when he was at home. He reported that the abuse caused him severe anxiety, depression, and admitted to suicidal thoughts.
C.R.'s adult sibling also reported ongoing abuse by father towards mother. C.R. reported that his father would come home drunk and that C.R. could smell liquor on his breath. Sometimes, C.R. had to protect mother from father's physical abuse.
DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (c). The petition alleged that C.R. came within the juvenile court's jurisdiction because there was a substantial risk he would suffer serious physical harm as a result of father's alcohol abuse. Further, the petition alleged that father has a history of alcohol abuse and is a current abuser of alcohol, rendering father unable to provide regular care for C.R.
The juvenile court sustained the allegations that father's alcohol abuse created a substantial risk of harm to C.R, finding they were supported by the statements from mother, C.R., and the adult sibling. The juvenile court noted that father's alcohol abuse manifested itself through father's anger and violent behavior. The juvenile court declared C.R. to be a dependent of the court, removed him from the father, and placed the child with the mother under the supervision of DCFS. Father was granted monitored visitation and ordered to complete random drug testing.
Father appealed. While father's appeal was pending, C.R. reached the age of majority and the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction. We directed the parties to submit letter briefs, addressing whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot and invited C.R. to file a respondent's brief.
DISCUSSION
I. Father's appeal is not moot
As an initial matter, we must decide whether father's appeal is moot since the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction when C.R. became an adult.
An appeal may become moot when "the occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant . . . effective relief." (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054.) Generally, an order terminating the juvenile court's jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in a dependency proceedings moot. (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) Dismissal for mootness is not automatic; rather, it is decided on a case-by-case basis. (Ibid.) The "critical factor in considering whether a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error." (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60.) We may exercise our discretion to reach the merits of a challenge to any jurisdictional finding if the finding could have other consequences for the appellant, beyond jurisdiction. (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.)
Here, as a result of the juvenile court's true finding that father was a current abuser of alcohol, father is unable to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which is required for his job as a security officer. Because father has identified a collateral consequence as a result of the jurisdictional finding, the appeal is not moot. Accordingly, we will review father's challenge to the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings. II. Jurisdiction
We review the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re Roxanne B. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 916, 920.) Substantial evidence is any evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the juvenile court's finding. (In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.) We resolve all conflicts in favor of the prevailing party and defer to the juvenile court on issues of credibility. (In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 216.) We defer to the inferences drawn by the trial court, but only where those inferences are reasonable. (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 633.) Inferences must be the product of logic and reason. Inferences that are the result of speculation or conjecture cannot support jurisdiction. (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828.)
The juvenile court may determine a child is subject to its jurisdiction if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of a parent's failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child, or a parent's inability to care for the child due to the parents' substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) To establish jurisdiction, DCFS must prove: neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; causation; and serious physical harm or illness to the minor, or a substantial risk of such harm or illness. (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.)
Father argues that DCFS failed to prove that he was an abuser of alcohol; rather than merely a user of alcohol. He contends his consumption of alcohol, without more, is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. While this assertion is generally correct (see In re Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 769) the juvenile court here based its finding on much more than father's use of alcohol. The record is replete with statements from mother, C.R., and his adult sibling attesting to the link between father's abusive behavior and his alcohol consumption. Moreover, father presented no evidence at the adjudication hearing to refute the multiple descriptions of his violent conduct while under the influence of alcohol. The allegations regarding father's alcohol abuse were supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
DHANIDINA, J. We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
LAVIN, J.