Filed 11/18/ 22 In re Anthony E. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re ANTHONY E ., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
Cou rt Law. B31 5305 ( Los Angeles County Super.
Ct. No. 21CCJP 03352B )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RENE E.

,

Defendant and Appellant.2 APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robin R. Kesler

, Judge Pro Tempore

. Affirmed

.

Paul Couenhoven , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William B. Thetford, D eputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
R ene E. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders in dependency proceedings
for his six

- year

- old son

. He argues that (1) there is insufficient
evidence t o support the juvenile court’s finding that he failed to protect his son from the mother’s substance abuse and mental health problems; and (2) the juvenile court erred when it refused to give him custody of his son. Substa ntial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings

, and subsequent proceedings in the juvenile court have rendered father’s second issue moot. Accordingly, we affirm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Facts
A. Family Father and Amanda G. (mother) met in 2014. Their son, Anthony, was born in October 2015. 1 Father and mother never
married

, but were in a relationship and lived together for approximately five years. During this time, f ather and mother

1 Mother has one other child

— Arianna (born 2007)

— by another father. Father has two other children by other mothers. These other children are not at issue in this appeal.3

regularly engaged in “ arguments and fights with stu ff being
broken.” Father and mother eventually split up : Father moved
to San Bernardino ; mother, to Los Angeles with Anthony

. B

. Mother’s drug use Mother used crystal meth. She would go into the bathroom “for long periods of time” and emerge either “angry and arguing and talking to the ceiling” or “look[ing] like she was sleep walking.” Mother would “stay awake for long periods of time” and “never sle[pt].” Father complained to mother’s brother, Alfonso, that mother’s methamphetamine use was a pro blem in their relationship.
C

. Mother’s mental health issues Beginning sometime in 2017, mother began “hearing voices and talking to herself

, ” and sta r ted to blam e “everything bad that ha[d] happened” on entities she identified only as “they” and
“them. ” Mother called father “back

- to

- back” whenever she was having one of these mental health breakdown s, as father was “the only person able to settle her down” because he was “the only
one who understands her.” At times, mother ’s episodes got so
bad that sh e would use a baseball bat to smash glass objects in
the house and to make holes in the interior walls.
D. Events u nderlying d ependency j urisdiction One day i n June 2021, mother told Anthony and Arianna “to pack a bag because they were leaving and neve r coming back.”
Mother drove with the children to a motel in Palmdale. On the way there she drove erratically

— at high rates of speed and through red lights

— and, while hallucinat ing, threatened to drive
the car off a cliff. Mother trashed the motel room, complained the motel did not have cameras, and then drove back to Los Angeles.
A fter mother returned, Alfonso, the maternal aunt Jessica

,4

and the maternal grandmother went to her home. Mother told
them that she “had been doing meth” and had in fact be en using methamphetamines since she was 15 years old, but she was going to stop. She left the room and returned with a glass pipe

. Mother smashed the pipe on the table before handing it to
Alfonso. F ather had been working out of town during this
inciden t, and upon his return

, picked up mother and drove her to
the beach because he thought “she needed some air” and they
could “talk and walk for a while to c alm her down.” In early July , mother was prescribed psychotropic medication at a psychiatric and c hemical dependency treatment center. Mother admitted to drinking alcohol while taking the medication, and she stopped taking the medication completely after two days.
II. Procedural Background
In late J uly 2021, the Los Angeles Department of Children

a nd Family Services (the Department) filed a petition asking the juvenile court to exert dependency jurisdiction over Anthony

. The Department alleged that (1) mother had a “ history of
substance abuse ” and her “ current abuse [] of amphetamine and methampheta mine ” rendered her “incapable of providing regular care and supervision” of Anthony, and that father had “ failed to
protect ” Anthony because he knew of mother’s substance abuse
but allowed her to reside in the home and have unlimited access

to Anthony ; (2) mother had a “ history of mental and emotional problems including auditory and visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, [and] paranoia ” which rendered her “incapable of providing [Anthony] with regular care and supervision

, ” and that f ather had “failed to protect” Anthony
because he knew of mother’s mental and emotional problems but5

all owed her to reside in the home and have unlimited access to Anthony; and ( 3 ) mother’s erratic driving at high rates of speed and running through red ligh ts while Anthony was a passenger in the vehicle, as well as shattering glass and causing holes in the
walls of the home

, created a “detrimental and endangering
situation [] and home environment” for Anthony. The Department further alleged that this conduct place d Anthony at substantial risk of serious physical harm, thereby rendering dependency jurisdiction appropriate under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). 2
In follow

- up interviews by the Department, mother denied

current us e of drugs or alcohol and she denied having any history of drugs or alcohol. Father denied having any knowledge of mother’s drug use or mental history during their seven

- year relationship and claimed he only became aware of mother’s issues
in late June 20 21.
In September 202 1 , the juvenile court held a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. The court struck the reference to
mother’s “ history ” of substance abuse and otherwise sustained all of the allegations in the petition , expressly finding that fa ther “tr[ied] to assist [mother] a few times, but after seeing her behavior, knowing that she was on drugs, he still left [Anthony]

. . . a five year old” with mother “instead of just taking [Anthony] out of mother’s home and protecting [him].” The court found that “pursuant to

. . . section 361 [subdivision] (c) and by clear and convincing evidence[,] there’s still a substantial danger if [Anthony] was returned to the physical custody of the parents.” The court found no reasonable means to protect Anthon y short of

2 All further statutor y references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.6

removal, declared him a dependent of the court, remo ved Anthony from both parents, and ordered the Department to provide r eunification services consisting of drug, alcohol, and psychiatric treatment for mother, and individual counseling for
fath er. Father filed this timely appeal. Mother did not appeal.
III. P ostappeal events 3
On September 20, 2022, while this appeal was pending, the juvenile court held a review hearing pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision ( f

). At that hearing, the court vacated its prior removal order and placed Anthony with mother.
DISCUSSION
I. Father’s Challenge to Dependency Jurisdiction Father challenges a portion of the juvenile court’s first two jurisdictional findings. Specifically, he does not challenge the court’s findings that mother was abusing drugs and had a history of mental and emotional problems, or that those conditions placed Anthony at substantial risk of serious bodily injury; all he challenges is the court’s further finding that father “failed t o protect” Anthony. Father asserts that there was insufficient
evidence that he knew of mother’s drug abuse or mental health issues, such that he could not be found liable for failing to protect Anthony from circumstances of which he was ignorant. We

rev iew father’s challenges to these specific factual findings for substantial evidence, asking only whether the record, when

3 We grant the Department’s request for judicial notice and, on our own, take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s September 20, 2022 minute order. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453, 459, subd. (a).)7

viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court ’ s findings, contains evidence that is reasonable, credible

, and of solid valu e for a reasonable jurist to make those findings. ( In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 .) As a threshold matter, we must decide whether father may assert this challenge at all. Dependency jurisdiction attaches to a child , not h is parent. ( In re D.M. ( 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) As a result, mother ’ s failure to appeal the jurisdictional findings means that the court ’ s jurisdiction over Anthony
remains intact based on her conduct alone , and hence regardless
of the outcome of father’s appeal. ( In r e M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452.) Of course, we still have the discretion to reach the merits of father’s challenge to the portions of juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings if those findings (1) serve as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal; (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings; or (3) could have other consequences for the appellant, beyond jurisdiction

. ( In re D.M. , at p. 646; In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754,

762

- 763.) Because the juvenile court ’ s finding s that father failed
to protect Anthony may be used against father in future dependency proceedings, we elect to reach the merits of father’s jurisdictional challenge.

“ Se ction 300, subdivision (b) (1), authorizes a juvenile court to exercise dependency jurisdiction over a child if the ‘ child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child, or . . . by the inability of the parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent ’ s . . . mental8

illness . . . or substance abuse. ’ (§ 300, subd. (b) (1).) ” ( In re
L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848.) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that father was aware of mother’s drug use and mental health problems , and that those problems placed Anthony at risk

. Father’s statement to A lfonso that mother’s meth use was an issue in their relationship is substantial evidence that father was aware of mother’s drug problems, yet father still allowed Anthony
to remain in mother’s care. Mother’s calls to father when she was having her “episod es” is substantial evidence that father was also aware of mother’s mental health issues, yet father still allowed Anthony to remain in her care. Indeed, father acknowledges he
took mother for a walk on the beach to calm her down after
mother’s mental brea kdown in late June 2021 . Yet, despite his
awareness of mother’s mental instability

, he allowed her to care for Anthony until the Department interven ed in mid

- July. This is ample evidence of a failure to protect justifying the adverse
section 300 jurisdic tion finding against f ather. Father urges that the record shows that he was, at most, aware of mother’s drug use and mental health problems, but not that those problems posed a risk to Anthony. Father’s contention is belied by the record. A meth addictio n severe enough to disrupt an adult relationship is, when construed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s finding, also severe enough to pose a risk to the care of a young child. Father asserts that his awareness of mother’s “episodes” is in sufficient to show risk because the record does not indicate what happened during those “episodes,” but this not only impermissibly construes the term in the light least favorable to the juvenile court’s finding, but also ignores the evidence that father h ad to calm mother down after9

one of those episodes, a task that would be unnecessary if they were of no consequence. Father lastly emphasizes that he has not lived with mother for a few years, but the record shows that he was aware of mother’s problems de spite this living arrangement; the arrangement does not somehow preclude such

awareness. I I

. Father’s Challenge to the Juvenile Court’s Refusal to Place Anthony in H is Custody is Moot

“ An appellate court will not review questions which are
moot and onl y of academic importance, nor will it determine abstract questions of law at the request of a party who shows no substantial rights can be affected by the decision either way. [Citation.] An appeal becomes moot when, through no fault of the respondent, t he occurrence of an event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief. [Citations.] On a case

- by

- case basis, the reviewing court decides
whether subsequent events in a dependency case have rendered the appeal moo t and whether its decision would affect the
outcome of the case in a subsequent proceeding. ” ( In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054

- 1055.) Father’s challenge to the trial court’s dispositional order is moot because we can no longer render effectual relief as to that
issue

. Father urged on appeal that the juvenile court violated the mandate of section 361.2, subdivision (a)

, to place Anthony with
him

— as the noncustodial parent

— upon removing Anthony from his custodial parent. Once the juven ile court placed Anthony back with mother as the custodial parent, however, any violation
of section 361.2 ceased. (See, e.g., R.S. v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270 [ ‘“ section 361.2 deals specifically with10

the removal of the child from a custodial parent when there also exists a noncustodial parent ’” ].)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

______________________, J.
HOFFSTADT
We concur:

__________________ _______, P. J.
LUI

_________________________, J.
CHAVEZ