Opinion
G055763
05-15-2018
In re S.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.L., Defendant and Appellant.
Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17DP0600) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary L. Moorhead, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.
* * *
The juvenile court found it had dependency jurisdiction over now one- and one-half-year-old S.L. (child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated) and ordered the child removed from parental custody.
J.L. (father) concedes there was sufficient evidence to support jurisdiction based on his substance abuse but argues there was insufficient evidence to base jurisdiction on his mental health issues or domestic violence claims.
X.L. (mother) did not file an appeal.
Although in the notice of appeal father challenged removal of child from his custody, he did not argue it in his briefs, thus abandoning the issue. (W.S. v. S.T. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 132, 149, fn. 7.)
Because these insufficient evidence claims are not justiciable we cannot grant father any effective relief. Therefore we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June 2017 the court issued a protective custody warrant to remove child from parents' custody resulting from allegations of general neglect. At age nine months, child was developmentally delayed, unable to sit up on her own, had "poor head control/strength" and did not use her legs when crawling. She was also small for her age. She had not been to the doctor for five months and had not been vaccinated. Child was placed with her paternal grandmother.
In the investigation leading to the warrant, Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) expressed concerns about father's abuse of prescription medications and mother's alcohol abuse. It was reported that a month prior father had overdosed on painkillers when he was caring for child. In addition father had prior mental health diagnoses. Further, there were concerns of domestic violence between parents, including bruises on mother's arms and legs and a black eye. Mother explained she had passed out after drinking with father and "woke up" with the injuries.
Both parents had been involved in child welfare matters when they were minors. Father had been investigated for possible sex abuse when he was 13. He also suffered from severe depression and had drug dependency problems. When he was 17 he was hospitalized for heroin addiction. Mother had been adopted by her grandparents because her parents neglected her due to their drug addiction.
During the investigation mother told SSA father had been injured while in the military. Child's paternal aunt stated father had long abused prescription pain medication and had been in rehabilitation facilities several times. Paternal aunt reported mother had called her earlier that day to report father was "hallucinating" and "acting weird" and mother did not know what to do. A few days' prior, father had been "'too high'" to remember where he put mother's car keys, preventing mother from going to work. Mother had told paternal aunt she was in the house with child when father overdosed the prior month. Paternal aunt stated father was paranoid and believed SSA intervened to force him to vaccinate child.
Paternal aunt believed mother was afraid of father and had noticed she was "quiet and submissive" in his presence, obeying all his orders. She also believed father abused mother, who had told her a few days earlier she had put herself on a waiting list for admission at a domestic violence shelter.
When mother was interviewed she denied any domestic violence and stated "she had no idea" how she received her noticeable bruises. She stated before child was born she had slapped father who did not hit her in return. She also denied father had recently overdosed, explaining he had had a seizure.
SSA filed a petition alleging child may have some developmental conditions; father "may have undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues" and "an unresolved substance abuse problem"; parents "may have an unresolved history of domestic violence"; and mother "may have an unresolved substance abuse problem."
In the jurisdiction/disposition report SSA noted child was doing well in her placement and monitored visitation with parents was generally appropriate. Parents refused to discuss recommended services or the allegations in the petition with the social worker. Father refused to participate in drug testing because it had not been ordered.
In addendum reports prepared before the jurisdiction hearing, SSA noted it had no information parents had availed themselves of any recommended services and they had not appeared for any drug tests.
Parents personally filed a document challenging the warrant and removal of child, alleging, among other things, a variety of conspiracies and fraudulent acts by and between SSA and the court, including a conspiracy to "confiscate all unalienable rights of private persons, real live human beings made of flesh, blood, and bone, reduce them to artificial persons, and to unlawfully conduct home invasions and kidnappings of our men children and our women children by fraudulent legal means[,] for the sole purpose of the unlawful gaining access to federal funding." The document also claimed Pope Francis had issue a papal bull calling for the dissolution of all corporations
Parents also personally filed a 16-page second document titled "Judicial Notice Affidavit Notice of Distress." They again challenged removal of child and the proceedings in general, asserting fraud, conspiracy, defamation, terrorism, and "Black Magick" among many other claims. Two pages of it were essentially an anti-Semitic screed.
The day of the hearing SSA submitted an additional addendum report referencing multiple pages of texts between mother, father, and paternal grandmother. The report pointed to a message from mother to paternal grandmother "begging" her not to "report yesterday's incident to the social worker," noting father was "so high," "talking nonsense" and "being so mean." It also highlighted a statement from father to paternal grandmother in which he severely castigated her for her mistreating him. The attached texts included mother's statement she was concerned about father's use of pills and stated he was doing "[b]izarre shit" and was "so out of his mind right now there's no way that's just the Xanax." Mother also mentioned a "program" she had investigated.
At the jurisdiction hearing, the court admitted all of the SSA reports and the two documents filed by parents, the latter being relevant to the parents' mental status. Social worker Kendyl King was the only witness.
King testified she was concerned mother did not know how to deal with father's behavior and child could be in danger due to father's "seizures or an undiagnosed mental health or mental condition." She also was concerned about possible domestic violence based on mother's bruises and black eye and mother putting herself on a waiting list at a shelter. In addition, mother had told her she was sometimes afraid of father and "complies with everything, with all father's directives." Further, father had yelled at paternal grandfather in front of SSA employees. Domestic violence, including mother's slapping father before child's birth, put child at risk.
King also testified paternal aunt had stated father abused his prescription drugs and paternal grandmother said father is sometimes paranoid. King stated both the paranoia and the documents parents filed caused her concern over father's mental health.
King testified father had behaved appropriately when visiting child.
The court found true the petition's allegations and assumed jurisdiction over child. It ordered a psychological evaluation of father under Evidence Code section 730 (730 evaluation).
Shortly after the jurisdiction hearing mother advised SSA she and father had "split up." A few days later paternal grandmother reported father was in the Veterans Affairs Hospital because of an overdose.
The 730 evaluation was completed without father's participation, despite the evaluator's attempts to speak with him. Mother also did not agree to speak with the evaluator, who interviewed paternal grandmother and paternal aunt.
As stated in the 730 evaluation report, paternal grandmother reported father began using drugs early in his teens. He was hospitalized at least three times for substance abuse, including heroin. He was treated several times, including by a psychiatrist, during which time he "would act paranoid." Father attempted suicide when he was 14.
Further, paternal aunt reiterated father had tried to kill himself and could not seem to overcome his drug addiction. She also mentioned father was delusional at times, when he was using drugs. He spoke of a "'goddess'" who protected him, stating he could use her against the paternal aunt. Paternal aunt reported she believed parents' relationship was abusive.
The evaluator noted father's history "involve[d] a long developmental pathway of dysfunction" with exposure to "extreme trauma" and perhaps sexual abuse. After the report was filed the court admitted it into evidence and ordered SSA to continue to attempt to have father interviewed.
At the dispositional hearing, the court removed child from parental custody and ordered reunification services to both parents. Father's case plan required him to participate in a domestic violence program and a parenting class, and complete a drug treatment program, including drug testing.
DISCUSSION
As father acknowledges, "a single jurisdictional finding supported by substantial evidence is sufficient to support jurisdiction and render moot a challenge to the other findings." (In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452.) This is because any decision as to the other findings will not reverse the order of jurisdiction. (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308 (Briana V.).) We have discretion, however, to review additional grounds for jurisdiction, "when the finding '(1) serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal [citation]; (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings [citations]; or (3) "could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction" [citation].' [Citations.]" (In re M.W., at p. 1452.)
Conceding jurisdiction was warranted based on the finding of substance abuse, father argues we should exercise our discretion to review the mental health and domestic violence findings based on the second factor in In re M.W., i.e., they "'could be prejudicial' [or] 'could potentially impact'" this or a future dependency proceeding.
Father asserts we should review the mental health finding because it could "create unnecessary hurdles" for reunification including a requirement he undergo a psychological examination or taking unneeded medication. As to domestic violence father contends that without that finding he would not have been required to attend a year-long batterer's class. He will be additionally prejudiced, he claims, by the "confession dilemma," i.e., to complete the program he will have to admit to domestic violence. If he denies it, he continues, he will not be able to comply with his plan.
Despite father's claim to the contrary, all of these consequences have to do with actual or potential disposition orders. A disposition order is not dependent on a jurisdictional finding. (Briana V., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311 ["court is not limited to the content of the sustained petition when it considers what dispositional orders would be in the best interests of the children"].) The problem that the juvenile court seeks to address need not be described in the sustained section 300 petition. (Ibid.)
When a child is declared a dependent, the juvenile court "may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child." (§ 362, subd. (a); Briana V, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311 [court has "'broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly'"].) The court may consider all the evidence when creating a disposition plan. (In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634, 647.)
As to the mental health count, the court already ordered the 730 evaluation, which was completed, although without father's participation, with an order SSA attempt to arrange an interview with father. Additionally, father's concern medication might be prescribed is purely speculative and not reasonable. The case plan does not even require mental health counseling, nor did the 730 evaluation. And there was no order father take medication. Medication would not be prescribed without a medical reason merely because of this finding.
Likewise, based on the totality of the evidence the court could have reasonably ordered father to attend a batterer's class even without a jurisdictional finding of domestic violence. At the time child was taken into custody mother had a black eye and multiple bruises on her arms and legs, claiming she "woke up" with them after a night of drinking with father. This explanation is not credible and given the circumstances it is reasonable to believe father inflicted the bruises and black eye. The other evidence also supports ordering father to attend the class, including mother reporting to paternal aunt she had placed herself on a waiting list for a domestic violence shelter and paternal aunt's observation mother appeared to be afraid of father and was submissive and obedient to him. This led paternal aunt to conclude father abused mother. Mother also told social worker King she sometimes feared father and obeyed his orders.
Father asserts that to complete the batterer's program he must admit to domestic violence and if he fails to do so he will be unable to complete his case plan, thus implicating the so-called "confession dilemma." (Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1752-1754 (Blanca P.).) Blanca P. is inapt.
In that case the father was falsely accused of sexually molesting his daughter. He denied the molestation and completed his service plan. However at the 18-month hearing the court failed to consider evidence by a psychologist there had been no molestation and terminated services, setting a permanency hearing under section 366.26 in part based on the social worker's testimony the parents had refused to acknowledge molestation. (Blanca P., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th. at p. 1747.)
In reversing and ordering a new hearing, the court called the confession dilemma "one of the most troublesome problems in juvenile dependency jurisprudence—the dilemma faced by a parent who is falsely accused of sexually molesting his or her child. If the parent denies what any decent person must regard as a horrible act, that denial itself . . . may end up preventing reunification," noting "[f]ew crimes carry as much . . . social opprobrium as child molestation." (Blanca P., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1752, italics omitted.)
We question whether the confession dilemma principle ever applies to issues other than child molestation, but even assuming it does, it does not govern here. The evidence supports an inference father battered mother. There is no evidence to the contrary. The court would have been remiss if it did not require father to address this issue.
Other than what we have discussed, father failed to suggest any adverse consequences or prejudice that could result from the mental health or domestic violence jurisdiction findings. Because father has not appealed the finding as to his substance abuse, this is not a case where reversing the findings on these two counts would make father a so-called "nonoffending parent." (In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917.) Therefore, we dismiss the appeal because there is no justiciable controversy for which we can render any effective relief. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1492; Briana V., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 310.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
THOMPSON, J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. IKOLA, J.