Opinion
E065533 E066056
02-24-2017
In re T.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.S., Defendant and Appellant.
Michelle L. Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.S. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati and Adam Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J262782) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes, Judge. Dismissed. Michelle L. Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.S. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati and Adam Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for minor.
S.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders finding her minor son, T.H., a dependent child of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). Mother contends the juvenile court erred in removing T.H. from her custody, in requiring a psychological evaluation for her, and in failing to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA"). The San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) requests that we take judicial notice of a subsequent order placing T.H. in mother's care and terminating jurisdiction. CFS contends this order renders the appeal moot. We agree and dismiss the appeal as moot.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In her reply brief, mother withdrew her ICWA issue.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2015, CFS received a referral alleging that mother gave birth to T.H., who had severe medical issues requiring intensive medical follow-up. Mother did not seem to understand the severity of T.H.'s diagnoses and medical needs; she was uncooperative with hospital staff and CFS.
On October 26, 2015, CFS interviewed mother. When the social worker began verifying referral information, mother yelled, accusing her of "playing games." That same day, the social worker learned that mother had not completed discharge classes at Loma Linda University Medical Center (Loma Linda) and had only visited the child 10 times in 19 days. The next day, a social worker remained unable to verify mother's residence or the location of her other children. Mother initially denied the existence of her other children, but later stated they were residing with their father; she refused to provide father's contact information or her address. CFS detained T.H. out of parental custody with a warrant and sought to detain mother's other children, Ty.H. and J.H., with a warrant. On October 30, 2015, CFS filed a petition under subdivision (b) and (g) of section 300, alleging a substantial risk existed that T.H. would suffer serious physical harm based on mother's mental health problems that limited her ability to provide adequate care; that the parents failed to obtain appropriate medical care and provide adequate follow-up care for T.H; father failed to protect T.H. from mother's ongoing mental health problem; and father's ability to parent was unknown because he lived in Texas.
According to the detention report, mother has a history of severe mental health problems, leading to removal of three of her older children in 2001, substantiated allegations of neglect in 2001, and substantiated allegations of physical abuse in 2005. Mother's criminal history includes charges of child endangerment and assault with a firearm in 2001, and assault with a deadly weapon or firearm in 2007. At the November 2, 2015 detention hearing, the juvenile court made a prima facie finding and detained T.H. out of home. Visitation was ordered for mother, and a jurisdiction and disposition hearing was set. CFS advised the court that father had confirmed he was residing in Texas and that Ty.H. and J.H. were in his care; mother was evasive and only slightly more cooperative after she placed the children with father to avoid CFS. CFS sought to detain Ty.H. and J.H. with a warrant. The court continued the detention hearing for Ty.H. and J.H.
The jurisdiction and disposition report was filed on November 20, 2015. CFS recommended that the court sustain the allegations in the petition, remove the children from parental custody, and provide family reunification services to the parents. Mother denied any merit to the allegations, claiming that she was complying with hospital requests, providing all necessary consent, and being nice to hospital staff. Medical staff disagreed with mother's claims. The social worker expressed concerns that mother failed to believe her anxiety interfered with her parenting, and she did not understand the severity of T.H.'s medical needs. Mother was referred to individual counseling and parenting classes, and was ordered to have a psychological evaluation. In May 2001, mother's general neglect of an older child, D., was substantiated, leading to the prior dependency and mother's incarceration. D. was dehydrated, mother and the children were often homeless, and mother had mental health problems. She had a history of schizophrenia and posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).
On March 1, 2016, at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court found that CFS failed to prove any of the allegations as to Ty.H. and J.H., and dismissed those dependencies. Regarding T.H., the court expressed concern about mother's ability to care for the child's special needs. The court sustained the allegation concerning father's conduct, under subdivision (g). The court also "conform[ed] to . . . proof," by sustaining a subdivision (g) allegation addressing mother's conduct, stating as follows: "'The child's mother . . . has not shown an ability to care for a special-needs child, and therefore, her ability to provide for special medical needs is unknown, therefore, placing the child at risk of serious emotional and/or physical harm." The court ordered T.H. removed from parental custody, approved the case plans proposed by CFS, and ordered family reunification services for the parents. The court also ordered weekly supervised visits and authorized CFS to facilitate overnight, weekend, unsupervised, and extended visits, and return when deemed appropriate.
On March 7, 2016, mother filed a notice of appeal objecting to the court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders.
On April 4, 2016, Robert E. Brodie II, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, conducted a psychological evaluation of mother. He concluded: "Ultimately [mother] was uncooperative with the interview and this writer was not able to obtain information to suggest [mother] has the ability to adequately care for her children and I also was not able to obtain information to suggest she is experiencing mental health symptoms that would significantly affect her ability to parent." Dr. Brodie recommended therapy, treatment for PTSD, and anxiolytic medications because her anxiety seemed to worsen as her stress increased.
Dr. Brodie inquired about mother's anxiety, specifically her symptoms, but she became frustrated and stopped responding. He inquired about her prior history with CFS, and she claimed CFS "illegally" removed her children based on "false allegations." D. was lethargic, losing weight, and diagnosed with dehydration. According to mother, that was impossible, since she breast fed D. Her children were removed, and she was arrested for impeding an officer. Mother claimed that Loma Linda hospital staff retaliated against her due to her filing complaints against them. When asked about the children's immunizations, mother made a biblical reference about germ warfare. Upon further inquiry, she became increasingly frustrated and stated she needed to leave. The interview was terminated. Dr. Brodie opined that mother's thoughts appeared based in reality, but she was elusive, argumentative, and extremely guarded, refusing to answer questions. She paid little attention, and spent significant time texting. At one point, she stated her uncle "was being vulgar towards her and she would need to obtain a restraining order." MMPI-2-RF testing indicated she denied shortcomings that most people acknowledged.
T.H. was admitted to Loma Linda from March 29 to April 1, 2016, for breathing problems. He was chronically congested. Medical staff recommended immunizations for T.H. but mother refused to give consent. CFS obtained a court order authorizing routine immunizations for T.H. Although it was crucial for T.H. to have ready access to medical services, mother continued to experience transportation problems. Mother continued to be argumentative, uncooperative and combative, blaming others and not taking responsibility for her actions and behaviors. Despite mother's lack of cooperation, she appeared appropriate with T.H. at visits, and the social worker recommended liberalized visitation.
On May 12, 2016, the parties agreed about the plan for T.H.'s transition to mother, who would have an unsupervised day visit on May 13, 2016. Mother agreed to attend T.H.'s medical appointments and to continue attending services, and CFS agreed to begin overnight and weekend visits on May 20, 2016.
On May 13, 2016, mother filed a second appeal objecting to the court's findings and orders on April 5 and May 5, 2016.
II. DISCUSSION
CFS requests, and mother does not object, that we take judicial notice of the August 2, 2016, court minutes. The minutes indicate that following mother's successful 30-day visit with T.H., CFS recommended that the court dismiss the dependency on the ground that "conditions no longer exist justifying initial jurisdiction." The court discharged T.H. as a dependent child, terminating jurisdiction.
Based on these subsequent events, CFS requests that the appeal be dismissed as moot because the juvenile court has already ordered the relief mother sought. Mother opposes the request. She asserts the appeal should not be dismissed because the case "involves very important issues including when a child should be made a dependent, the requirement of the burden of proof and what justifies removal."
"[D]ependency counsel have a duty to bring to the appellate court's attention postappellate rulings by the juvenile court that affect whether the appellate court can or should proceed to the merits." (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 57.) Because the postappellate ruling by the juvenile court affects the merits of this appeal, CFS's request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)
As a general rule, it is a court's duty to decide "'"actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it."'" (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) "An appellate court will dismiss an appeal when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief." (In re N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 58-59.) "[T]he 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." (Id. at p. 60.)
The primary issue in this appeal is whether T.H. should be subject to the court's dependency jurisdiction. Mother sought reversal of the jurisdictional finding and dismissal of the action. The juvenile court has since placed T.H. with mother and terminated its jurisdiction. Accordingly, proceeding to the merits of this appeal serves no useful purpose as its outcome could provide mother with no practical relief.
To avoid dismissal of the appeal, mother contends that this case "involves a question of general public interest as it pertains to the requirement that [CFS] prove its case rather than making a parent prove there is not a case." Alternatively, she argues that the court's order requiring her to attend a psychological evaluation "is the type of order that would tend to become moot before a decision could be made on the merits and thus should not be dismissed." We disagree. We find no issue of general public interest and no order that would tend to become moot before a decision could be made on the merits.
We dismiss the appeal as moot because T.H. has been returned to mother's physical custody and the juvenile court has terminated its jurisdiction.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J. We concur: MCKINSTER
J. CODRINGTON
J.