Opinion
G064092
11-18-2024
In re E.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. S.B., Defendant and Appellant. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Chloe R. Maksoudian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nos. 19DP1362B, 19DP1362C Julie Anne Swain, Judge. Motion to dismiss. Granted. Request for judicial notice. Denied.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Chloe R. Maksoudian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
OPINION
MOTOIKE, J.
S.B. (Mother) appeals from the declaration of dependency made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 360 , section 300 jurisdictional findings, and the removal of custody order regarding her son E.M. (the child). In February 2024, Mother absconded with the child after the court made jurisdictional findings on a section 300 petition and while child welfare proceedings were ongoing. Despite numerous attempts to contact her, Mother ceased communications with the court, her counsel, and the Orange County Social Services Agency (the Agency). On appeal, Mother contends the juvenile court's orders must be reversed because the proceedings occurred while she and the child were absent and the court lacked sufficient information and evidence on the child's circumstances. The Agency moved to dismiss Mother's appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine. We agree Mother's claim is barred by the disentitlement doctrine and therefore dismiss the appeal.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The Agency also seeks judicial notice of a status review report filed in the juvenile court after Mother filed her notice of appeal. The Agency asserts this report supports its claims Mother continues to defy court orders and Mother has had no contact with the Agency since she absconded with the child. We deny the request for judicial notice. The report is outside the appellate record as it was filed while Mother's appeal was pending. (See In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1106). Moreover, a reviewing court "'"'can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.'"'" (Ibid.) Accordingly, we cannot take judicial notice of the truth of facts in the Agency's report.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2023, following multiple instances of domestic violence between Mother and Father, the Agency sought a protective custody warrant and took the child into protective custody. Father did not appeal from the court's orders in the current proceedings, and therefore we focus our discussion on Mother.
The current proceedings are the third time in which the child has been declared a dependent of the juvenile court; the prior two instances occurred in 2019 and 2021, respectively. In each of the prior occasions, the child remained in Mother's care and child welfare proceedings were terminated after Mother completed family maintenance services.
On May 25, 2023, the Agency filed a section 300 petition, later amended by interlineation on September 29, 2023. The petition alleged under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the child suffered or there was a substantial risk the child would suffer serious physical harm because of Mother and Father's inability to provide care for the child as a result of the ongoing domestic violence, Father's ongoing mental health issues, Mother's possible mental health issues, unsafe home environment, and Father's unresolved substance abuse. The court ordered the child detained.
The child was initially placed with his maternal grandparents, who were staying in California temporarily. However, after his maternal grandparents returned to Michigan, he was placed with his paternal grandmother and step-grandfather. In June 2023, Mother lost her housing in California and moved to Michigan. Mother participated in parenting programs and a domestic violence personal empowerment program. She was also provided referrals for resources in Michigan. She had nightly monitored video visits with the child. In August 2023, the court issued an order for an expedited placement decision in Michigan under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).
In September 2023, the court found the petition, as amended by interlineation, true by a preponderance of the evidence, bringing the child within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The court continued the matter for a contested disposition hearing.
In an addendum report filed on January 3, 2024, the Agency recommended the child be returned to Mother's custody in Michigan subject to pending ICPC approval and on the condition that both parents participate in child welfare services.
On January 5, 2024, all parties convened for the disposition hearing. Mother appeared remotely from Michigan, where she was living. Counsels for Father and the child requested a continuance, which was granted despite objections from Mother's counsel and the Agency. The disposition hearing was continued to February 13, 2024.
Before the February disposition hearing, and over the Agency's objection, the court ordered a "trial visit" between the child and Mother in Michigan to take place in January 2024. As conditions of the visit, the court made additional protective orders, which, among other things, mandated Mother comply with the Agency regarding any requests for visitation or return of the child to California. The court also ordered there was to be no unsupervised contact between the maternal grandparents and the child, and Mother was not to allow any unauthorized contact between maternal grandparents and the child. Mother was also ordered not to travel outside of Michigan with the child. Mother agreed to abide by the court's orders regarding the trial visit.
The child arrived in Michigan on January 17, 2024, accompanied by the assigned social worker, who assessed Mother's current and future residences and left the child in Mother's care. The trial visit was to conclude on February 10, 2024, with Mother returning the child to the social worker. On January 30, 2024, Mother was informed the child was scheduled to fly back to California on February 10, 2024. The last direct contact between Mother and the Agency occurred on February 7, 2024. On February 9, 2024, a social worker arrived in Michigan to escort the child back to California. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Mother, the social worker was unable to locate Mother and the child, and subsequently returned to California without the child. On February 13, 2024, the juvenile court issued a protective custody warrant for the child and a bench warrant for Mother.
On February 29, 2024, the Agency filed a section 342 petition alleging the child was subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because Mother had abducted the child and refused to disclose the child's location or return the child to his placement or the Agency. On March 4, 2024, in the absence of the child and Mother, the court ordered the child detained based on the subsequent petition and set a jurisdiction hearing.
In April 2024, the court held a combined hearing as to the disposition on the original section 300 petition and jurisdiction and disposition on the subsequent section 342 petition. The bench warrant issued for Mother and the protective custody warrant for the child remained outstanding. The Agency reported that after Mother's text message to the assigned social worker on February 7, 2024, Mother ceased contact with the Agency. The court found the allegations of the section 342 petition true by a preponderance of the evidence. The court then declared the child a dependent of the juvenile court in each case and found vesting custody of the child with either parent would be detrimental to his interests. The court denied Mother reunification services in both cases based on its findings Mother had abducted the child, had not participated in the proceedings or services since the abduction, and refused to return the child to the Agency. The court set a six-month review hearing for October 2024. Mother's counsel timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I.
DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
Mother claims the juvenile court exceeded its authority when it made jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders in the absence of her and the child.
The Agency contends Mother is barred from seeking appellate relief because her continued noncompliance with the juvenile court's custody order and subsequent warrant implicate the principles of disentitlement. The disentitlement doctrine provides a reviewing appellate court with the "'inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused to comply with the orders of the trial court.'" (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206.) When the disentitlement doctrine is applied in the context of child welfare proceedings, it "is not a punishment for failing to cooperate with the social services agency but rather for violating court orders in such a way that prevents the court from protecting the child." (Ibid.)
Historically, the disentitlement doctrine is only applied in child welfare cases "of the most egregious conduct by the appellant, which frustrates the purpose of dependency law and makes it impossible to protect the child or act in the child's best interests." (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474). The courts have consistently found this threshold satisfied in child welfare cases where parents have absconded with minor children. (Id. at pp. 475-478 [mother absconded with minor children and was disentitled to appeal juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders]; In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1226-1227 [father absconded with minor child and was disentitled to appeal juvenile court's order removing child from care]; Adoption of Jacob C. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 617, 620-623 [holding trial court properly applied disentitlement doctrine to bar mother from participating in hearing on termination of her parental rights after she absconded with minor child].)
Absconding with a child to a different jurisdiction while proceedings are ongoing, "mak[es] it impossible for the court to safeguard the children's best interests. When a parent's violation of a juvenile court's orders makes the most crucial aspect of that court's job impossible, it stands to reason they should not be able to ask a reviewing court to overturn the juvenile court's orders." (In re E.E., supra, 49 Cal.App.5th at p. 208.)
II.
ANALYSIS
When Mother absconded with the child, the juvenile court's initial May 2023 detention order detaining the child "under the protective custody of [the] Agency" was still in effect. Mother intentionally absented herself and the child after the court sustained the allegations in the initial petition. Although she was actively participating in the child welfare proceedings, this changed once she was granted an out-of-state trial visit with the child. After being granted this visit, she concealed the child and refused to return him to the Agency, violating the court's protective orders for the visit. Indeed, at the time of the combined hearings as to the original section 300 petition and the subsequent section 342 petition, the bench warrant for Mother remained outstanding. Mother knowingly absented herself from the juvenile court proceedings, violated multiple court orders, and frustrated the Agency's efforts to locate and return the child to California. By refusing to comply with multiple court orders, Mother has "effectively undermined and frustrated the core purpose of California's dependency law," preventing the court from protecting the interests of the child by removing access to him. (In re E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 476.)
Mother contends the disentitlement doctrine should not be applied in her case. However, the cases she relies upon to support her contention are inapposite because she was participating in the child welfare proceedings prior to absconding with the child, the court sustained the section 300 petition prior to Mother absconding with the child, she is in current violation of multiple court orders, and she has had continuous representation by counsel. (Katheryn S. v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 958, 962-964 [proceedings held after mother absconded with child were deemed improper because mother's counsel was relieved and she was unrepresented]; In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236, 244-245 [court declined to apply disentitlement doctrine when parents had not received notice from the court and mother absconded with the children before dependency petitions were filed]; In re Baby Boy M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 588, 597-598 [disentitlement doctrine did not apply to appeal of mother whose "'obstructive conduct'" occurred before dependency petition was filed and who had not violated a court order].)
Mother's actions in these proceedings encompass exactly what the disentitlement doctrine seeks to avoid-allowing a parent to halt child welfare proceedings simply by removing the child from the court's access. Mother's actions of absconding with the child and violating the court's orders have undermined the court's ability to safeguard the child's best interests. It is therefore appropriate to apply the disentitlement doctrine in this case.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: GOETHALS, ACTING P. J. GOODING, J.