Opinion
E080995
09-01-2023
In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. K.C., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and Julie K. Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. DPIN2200130 Natalie M. Lough, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and Julie K. Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P. J.
K.C. (Mother), the mother of four-year-old J.C., appealed from the juvenile court's jurisdictional/dispositional orders making jurisdictional findings and terminating the dependency and granting Mother and Father J.C. (Father) joint physical and legal custody of their son. Mother filed an opening brief contending the juvenile court exceeded its authority by making jurisdictional findings while simultaneously terminating the dependency. In other words, Mother asserts the juvenile court erred in finding true the allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), because there was no evidence the child was at risk of harm or neglect in the custody of Mother and/or Father at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. On July 25, 2023, the parties filed a joint application and stipulation for reversal of judgment. After our own careful review of the entire record, we conclude that the juvenile court erred by sustaining the petition under section 300, subdivision (b), and failing to dismiss the petition before terminating the dependency. We thus reverse and remand the matter with directions.
All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November 2022, Mother and Father were married and lived together with their then three-year-old son J.C. The family came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) on November 21, 2022, after a referral was received alleging domestic violence between the parents in the presence of the child. Mother tried to take Father's cellphone and grabbed Father by his shirt and hoodie, while trying to force him out the front door. Mother was upset because Father had recently decided to file for divorce and barricaded herself with the child in a room until police arrived. The parents had no prior criminal or child protective services history. Mother was arrested.
When the social worker arrived at the family home and spoke to Father, the worker noted that the home was clean and organized with no signs of domestic violence. Father had a red mark on his neck and a bruise on his elbow. Father noted that this was the first time Mother was physical in the presence of the child. Father did not believe Mother would ever harm the child. The child was well groomed and had no signs of neglect or abuse. The child reported that he felt safe with his parents, and that he went to school and was well cared for by his parents. The social worker and Father agreed on a safety plan, which included Father leaving the home with the child and residing with the maternal grandparents. Father also agreed to file a temporary restraining order against Mother and enroll in a domestic violence program for victims.
When the social worker spoke with Mother, Mother stated that she had been diagnosed with hemochromatosis (excess iron), autism, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic attacks, and fibromyalgia. Mother took various pharmaceutical drugs and had a psychiatrist she had been seeing for the past two years. She admitted to using marijuana daily. She also admitted that she had anger issues with Father and that she was working on her anger. She was willing to enroll in anger management and parenting classes. She also agreed for Father to care for the child temporarily.
Mother's therapist reported that Mother had been in therapy for the last two years, that Mother had a lot to deal with, and that Mother was provoked by Father. Mother's therapist indicated Mother was remorseful about her behavior and had consistently taken responsibility for her own behaviors. The therapist further stated that Mother had never lost control towards her son and was an outstanding mother. Mother's diagnosis was moderate depression and anxiety disorder.
On December 14, 2022, a petition was filed on behalf of the child pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b) (failure to protect). DPSS recommended family maintenance services to mitigate safety concerns. A safety plan was developed with the parents, and the parents enrolled in services.
At the time of the detention hearing, the child remained in the care of the parents. Father resided in the home with the child while Mother was out of the home. Mother was admitted for mental health treatment on December 18, 2022. The child visited Mother under the restraining order guidelines for supervised visitation. The juvenile court maintained the child with Father and granted Mother supervised visitation.
At the January 4, 2023, continued detention hearing, Mother and Father were present. Mother had completed anger management classes and submitted multiple letters from friends attesting to her parenting abilities. The juvenile court ordered the child to remain with Father and provided Mother with additional visitation. Mother's criminal case was eventually dismissed with orders for her to attend mental health diversion.
By March 24, 2023, DPSS recommended the juvenile court terminate the dependency with Mother and Father having joint legal and physical custody of the child. Mother continued to attend an intensive outpatient treatment program and was engaged with her parent partner. Father attended a therapy session with Mother to better understand her mental health. The parents were also attending conjoint therapy to work on coparenting. The social worker believed the parents had effectively participated in services to mitigate the concerns that brought the case to DPSS's attention and were able to ensure a safe environment for their son. The parents had shown that they had prioritized their child and that they had a strong support system they regularly utilized to provide support and guidance, including the maternal grandparents, paternal grandmother, and parent partner.
At the March 24, 2023, jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, DPSS's counsel requested the juvenile court find all the allegations true as alleged in the section 300 petition and to terminate the dependency with joint legal and physical custody between the parents. Mother's counsel requested the court find not true the allegations in the petition as there was no foreseeable risk of future harm to the child, that the incident was isolated, and that the court dismiss the petition as there was no need for jurisdiction. Counsel indicated that Mother had filed for divorce and was in divorce counseling with Father and that there was no need for family law exit orders as the parents were agreeable to 50/50 custody. Father's counsel submitted on the recommendation to take jurisdiction and dismiss the case and also believed there was no need for exit orders. The child's attorney agreed the matter should be dismissed outright, noting this was really a family law case that belonged in family law court.
The court found true the allegations under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), and not true the allegations under subdivision (a) (serious physical harm) of section 300. As to disposition, the juvenile court found the conditions which would justify the initial assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed, those conditions were not likely to recur, and all of the child's needs were being met. The court thereafter terminated the dependency, and the parents were granted joint physical and legal custody of the child. Mother timely appealed.
STIPULATION
A stipulated reversal under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), is permissible in a dependency case when the parties agree that reversible error occurred, and the stipulated reversal will expedite the final resolution of the case on the merits. (In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380-382.) In the stipulation, the parties agree that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's true findings of the jurisdictional allegations at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, and that reversal of the judgment is appropriate.
"Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) requires proof that a child 'has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the minor will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the minor....' [Citation.] 'While evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions, the question under section 300 is whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.' [Citation.] Thus, domestic violence between a child's parents may support the exercise of jurisdiction only if there is evidence that the violence harmed the children or placed them at risk of harm, and 'the violence is ongoing or likely to continue ....' [Citation.]" (In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1453, citing In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820, fn. 4, &In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717.)
Here, we agree with the parties that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b), and that the court erred in not dismissing the dependency petition. It was undisputed at the time of the jurisdictional hearing that there was no current or future risk of harm to the child due to domestic violence concerns. There was also no current or future risk of harm due to Mother's marijuana use, Mother's mental health, and Father's failure to protect the child. Moreover, all the parties were in agreement to terminate the dependency proceedings without requiring any protective or restrictive orders for Mother or Father. Indeed, the juvenile court found that the child's educational, physical, mental, health, and developmental needs were being met, that conditions that would justify the initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300 no longer existed, and those conditions were not likely to recur if supervision was withdrawn. The court thus terminated the dependency and granted the parents joint physical and legal custody. We agree that since there was no need for any protective orders and a family law exit order was unnecessary, the juvenile court erred by not dismissing the petition. (See In re I.G. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 380, 387 ["[i]t is a clear abuse of discretion to make findings that a minor is at risk in her home, yet return the minor home and terminate supervision and dependency"]; In re Carlos T. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 795, 803 ["dependency jurisdiction is not warranted under subdivision (b) if, at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, there no longer is a substantial risk that the child will suffer harm"]; In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1397 [same].)
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the juvenile court's jurisdictional order, strike the court's true findings under section 300, subdivision (b), and order the court to dismiss the dependency petition. Although only Mother appealed, the jurisdictional order must be reversed as to both Mother and Father. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 208.)
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional order is reversed as to both parents. The juvenile court is directed to dismiss the dependency petition.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the clerk of this court is directed to issue the remittitur immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
We concur: McKINSTER J., MILLER J.