Filed 5/27 /16 In re B.I. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re B.I

. et al

. , Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

___________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

M.A , Defendant and Appellant. B 267440
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK 10500 )

APPEAL from order s of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Thomas
Grodin
, Commissioner

. Affirmed

. Janette Freeman Cochran , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
M ary C. Wickham, County Counsel , R. Keith Davis, Acting Assi s tant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky , Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________2

M.A. ( Mother ) appeals 1 from the juvenile court’s orders
, arguing that the court
erred when it found that venue was proper in Los Angeles County

. We disag ree and hold that, because the children “were found” in Los Angeles County venue was proper.

FACTS AND PROCEEDING BELOW 2
A

. Initial Referral and Investigation
On March 18 , 2015, t he family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) based on a hotline re ferral alleging general neglect of B .I. (a girl, age 11), Sh.I (a girl, age 6) and Su.I ( a boy, age 4) by their parents, M.A. (Mother) and D .A. (Father). The referral cl aimed that the parents had a history of fleeing authorities , the children were physically and emotionally abused by the parents , and that there was no one to care for the children because the parents used methamphetamines daily

. The petition also alleged that the parents engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence

. DCFS found that in February 2015, the children’s maternal grandmother and aunt
, who both resided in Los Angeles, traveled to Oakland, where the parents and children resided, to brin g Mother and children to Los Angeles in order for Mother to attend a drug treatment program while the children lived with their aunt nearby. About three weeks into the drug treatment program, Father came to Los Angeles to visit Mother, and she left the pr ogram. A few da ys later, the parents picked up the children from their aunt’s home. The eldest child called the aunt, crying and asking if the aunt could retrieve them

. Although the aunt pick ed up the children, the maternal grandfather returned them to the

1 The children’s father i s not a party to this appeal. Father’s court

- appointed appell ate counsel initially filed an opening brief on Father’s behalf, but subsequently filed a motion to withdrawal that brief, and, instead, filed an opening brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H . (2009 ) 47 Cal.4th 835. On February 26, 2016 , we issued a no merit brief letter inf

orming Father he had 30 days to “submit by letter or brief any grounds of appeal contentions, or arguments which [he] wishe s this c ourt to consider.” Father submitted no such br ief or letter.

2 Because the sole issue on appeal is whether venue was proper in Los Angeles County, we limit our statement of facts and proceedings to those relevant to that issue.3

parents after Father threatened to report to authorities that the grandparen ts had kidnapped the children.
The children’s social w ork er (CSW) assigned to the case, called the older
children’s schools to investigat e the claims raised by the hotline ref erral. Sh .I.’s principal expressed numerous concerns, including that Sh .I. came to school poorly groomed, wearing dirty clothes and complaining of hunger because she had not be en fed at home

. The principal reported that Mother appeared to be on drugs and that the family was residing in a warehouse without electricity or running water. Employees at B .I.’s school

r eported similar observations and concerns. The CSW repeatedly called the parents and left messages for them requesting that they contact DCFS, but n either Father nor Mother responded

. B. Detention & Subsequent Investigation On March 25, 2015, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code 3 section 300 petition alleging that the children had suffered, and there was a substantial risk they
would s uffe r, serious physical harm. The children’s whereabouts were unknown and
DCFS asked the court to order that they be detain ed and issue protective custody

warrants. On that same date, the court conducted a detention hearing, found the parents

were at

- large w ith the children, and made detention find ings and orders. The court also issued protective custody warrants for the children and ar rest warrants for the parents. On March 30, 2015, the CSW received a call from a family friend in Los Angeles
, reporting th e lo cation of the family and stating that she was concerned that the parents were unhealthy and were not caring for their children. That day, the po lice picked up the
children in Los Angeles , and DCFS transported them to their paternal aunt’s home. On Ap ril 1, 2015, the juvenile court recalled the arrest and protective c ustody warrants, and ordered monitored visitation for the parents.

3 All further statutory references are to Welfare and Institutions Co de unless otherwise specified.4

The children remained detained with their paternal aunt in Los Angeles, who reported that the parents had called the ch ildren approximately four or five times b ut had
not visited them. Mother and Father continued to evade DCFS and the CSW was not able to speak with them to garner any in formation for the investigation

. C. Hearings On May 11, 2015, the parents made their first appearance in court and were appointed counsel. The parents provided the court with their address in Oakland
, and
Father’s counsel stated th at the parents lived in Oakland and , therefore, Alameda County
and not Los Angeles County was the proper venu e. Counsel requested the court to
“transfer venue today or order [DCFS] make phone calls to begin that process. ” The juvenile court ordered DCFS to provide the parents with referrals for programs in Oakland and to create a schedule for contact between th e children and parents. The court continued the jurisdiction and adjudication hearing to June 30, 2015, because the parents were making their first appearance that day and DCFS had no opportunity to meet with or interview them

. I t also denied the request to transfer the case

to Alameda County
, stating that venue was appropriate in Los Angeles County

. On June 30, 2015, the court again continued the case to August 25 , 2015, because the parents had contacted DCFS and informed it that they were having car pr oblems and
would not be able to attend the scheduled hearing

. At the August 25, 2015 hearing
, no party disputed that the children were “found” in Los Angeles County

. After hearing argument, t he court sustained the DCFS’s section 300 petition as pled, rem oved the children from the parents’ custody and or dered them suitably placed with in the discretion of DCFS . The court ordered Mother and F ather to participate in drug and alcohol programs, random drug testing, and domestic violence programs. The court al so ordered monitored visitation for the parents. The parents requested that the case be transferred to Alameda County , and this time the court granted the request and ordered the transfer

. Mother filed this ap peal.5 DISCUSSION Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred when it determined that venue was proper in Los Angeles County. We disagree. Section 327 defines the proper ve nue for a dependency proceeding: “Either the juvenile court in the county in which a minor resides or i n the county where the minor
is found

. . . is the proper court to commence proceedings under this chapter.” (Italics added.) Mother claims that venue was improper in Los Angeles because both the children
and the parents resided in Oakland. Residency, howeve r, is not the only basis for venue.
Another basis for venue is where the children are “found

. ” 4 Here, it is undisputed that the children were “found” in Los Angeles County, a statutory basis for venue. Mother, however, argues that the court’s order, des ignating Los Angeles as the
venue for the case rather than Oakland, where the parents resided, made visitation difficult and prolonged reunification. The statutory scheme g overning dependency proceedings takes parental residence into account and allows fo r the discretionary
transfer of venue in such circumstances. P ursuant to s ection 375, subsection (a),

a juvenile court may transfer a juvenile case to the county where the parent resides at
any time “ after the court has made a finding of the facts upon wh ich it has exercised
its jurisdiction over the [ children ]

. ” ( § 375, subd. (a)); see In re J. C. ( 2002)
104 Cal.App.4th 984, 992.) Both the statutory language and co urts interpreting that language require that prior to transferring a case, the juvenile co urts must first make a finding of the facts upon which it has exercised its jurisdiction. (§ 375, subd. (a)) ; In re Hadley B. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1049.) Here, based on the parents ’ own delays, the August 25, 2015 hearing was the first opportunit y that the court had to make a finding regarding jurisdiction of the children.

4 It is unclear where the children resided at the time of the detention because Mother brought them to Los Angeles County to live with extended family while Mother attended a drug rehabilitation program for an indefinite per iod of time. We need not reach this issue, however, because venue was based on th e children being “found” in Los Angeles County

.6

Although the children were detained by DCFS on March 30, 2015, the parents fled and failed to communicate or meet with DCFS. On May 11, 2015, the parents made their first appe arance in court and, prior to that date, made no mention of transfer. The court continued the jurisdi ction hearing to June 30, 2015 in order for DCFS to have the opportunity to interview the parents before the court made a finding of fact regarding
DCFS’ s petition. The p arents failed to appear at the hearing. The hearing was continued to August 25, 2015 . At the August 25, 2015 hearing, the parents appeared. The court asserted jurisdiction, sustained DCFS’ s petition and, based on its discretion, determi ned that transfer was appropriate to Ala meda County, the county where the parents resided. Accordingly, any delay in the court’s discretionary decision to transfer was the result of
the parents’ own actions

— fleeing Los Angeles, refusing to communicate or meet with DCFS, and failing to attend the June 30, 2015 jurisdiction hearing.
DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:

CHANEY , J.

JOHNSON , J.