Filed 1/28/21 In re L.W. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re L.W., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B305049

 (Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. Nos.

20CCJP00208, 

20CCJP00208A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Dismissed.

John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant 

County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Mother M.W. appeals from the juvenile court order 

establishing jurisdiction over her son, L., pursuant to Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 300.1 Mother contends that there 

was insufficient evidence to establish that L. was at risk of harm. 

However, after the juvenile court removed L. from mother’s 

custody at the dispositional hearing, mother absconded with L. to 

Mexico. We conclude that under the disentitlement doctrine, 

mother may not obtain review of the juvenile court’s order and at 

the same time be in contempt of the very order from which she 

appeals. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 

BACKGROUND

Petition and Detention Report

Mother and father, A.Z., have one child together, L., born in 

2008.

2 Prior to the incident at issue, mother had full custody of 

L. and father lived in Mexico. 

On November 21, 2019, the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a 

referral regarding a domestic violence incident between mother 

and her boyfriend. The reporting party stated that on November 

19, 2019, mother drank a bottle of wine and then got into a 

physical altercation with her boyfriend while L. (then 11 years 

old) was sleeping in the home. The police reported damage and 

broken items throughout the home. Mother’s boyfriend told 

police that during the fight she bit him on the forearm and kicked 

him. 

1All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

2Father is not a party to this appeal.
3

In an interview with a DCFS children’s social worker 

(CSW) on November 26, 2019, mother admitted drinking after L. 

went to sleep and said the broken glass in the home was from a 

glass jar of coins she accidentally dropped. Mother told the CSW 

that she had an argument with her boyfriend but did not 

remember biting him, although she did not deny doing so. In 

addition, mother reported an incident in 2018 when she cut her 

wrists, also after drinking alcohol. She told the CSW that she 

was hospitalized after the 2018 incident “until I got sober,” but 

did not receive further mental health services after her release. 

L. denied witnessing any altercations between mother and her 

boyfriend and reported that he had only seen mother drunk on 

one occasion. 

DCFS filed a petition on January 14, 2020 under section 

300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The petition alleged in 

paragraphs a-1 and b-1 that on November 19, 2019, mother and 

her boyfriend engaged in a violent altercation in the home where 

mother and L. lived. During this altercation, mother bit her 

boyfriend’s arm and kicked him in the head. The petition further 

alleged that L. was previously under the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction due to mother’s violent conduct.3 In paragraph b-2, 

the petition alleged that mother had a history of substance abuse 

and was a current abuser of alcohol and marijuana. Mother was 

under the influence of alcohol on November 19, 2019, while L. 

was in mother’s care. The petition also alleged that mother had 

3The family had a prior dependency case based on a 2011 

incident of domestic violence against mother by a different 

boyfriend. The case closed in 2014 after mother fully complied 

with court orders. 
4

prior criminal convictions for driving under the influence (DUI). 

Paragraph b-3 alleged that mother had mental and emotional 

problems, including suicidal ideations, and that she was 

involuntarily hospitalized for her psychiatric condition in 2018. 

At the detention hearing on January 15, 2020, the court 

found there was a prima facie case for jurisdiction over L. 

pursuant to section 300, and no reasonable means available to 

protect L. without removing him. The court therefore removed L. 

from mother, ordered monitored visitation, and placed the child 

with maternal grandmother. 

Jurisdiction and Disposition

DCFS filed its jurisdiction/disposition report on January 

30, 2020. Mother told DCFS that she had stopped drinking 

because “when I drink . . . [t]hings tend to get out of hand.” She 

also claimed that the incident was “not that big of a deal” and 

just “a simple argument” between her and her boyfriend. She 

admitted getting a citation for DUI in 2019. Mother denied any 

suicidal behavior and stated she had cut her wrist in 2018 by 

accident while drunk. Mother told DCFS that father was in 

Mexico and did not have frequent contact with L. 

DCFS reported that L. could not safely return to mother’s 

care because of mother’s violent behavior toward her boyfriend, 

her unaddressed alcohol abuse, and her mental health issues, 

which placed L. at risk and created a detrimental home 

environment. DCFS also noted that mother was minimizing the 

November 2019 incident.

The court held the adjudication hearing on January 31, 

2020. Mother signed a plea waiver and entered a no contest plea 

to paragraph b-2. Accordingly, the court found the allegations of 

paragraph b-2 true as amended: that mother “has a history of 
5

substance abuse and is a current abuser of alcohol, which renders 

the mother incapable of providing regular care and supervision of 

the child. On 11/19/2019, the mother was under the influence of 

alcohol while the child was in the mother’s care and supervision. 

The mother has criminal convictions for . . . DUI. While under 

the influence, mother has engaged in self-harm and violent 

conduct. The mother’s substance abuse endangers the child’s 

physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home 

environment, and places the child at risk of serious physical 

harm, damage, and danger.” The court dismissed the remaining 

paragraphs. The court ordered L. to remain detained with 

maternal grandmother under DCFS supervision. 

In a last-minute information filed on February 21, 2020, 

DCFS reported that mother tested positive for marijuana on 

November 28, 2019 and January 30, 2020, then missed her 

scheduled drug tests on January 31 and February 5, 2020. 

Mother then tested positive for marijuana on February 8, 2020. 

At the disposition hearing on February 21, 2020, mother 

testified that she had a “drinking problem” but had been sober for 

the past three months. She stated that she had been attending 

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, counseling, and parenting and 

domestic violence classes. She wanted L. returned to her care 

and was willing to have maternal grandmother live with them. 

She also acknowledged that she had two DUI convictions and a 

psychiatric hospitalization related to her drinking. Mother 

denied regularly using marijuana and testified that she would 

eat a marijuana edible cookie to help her sleep instead of taking 

medication. 

Counsel for DCFS argued that mother had “little to no 

insight about her alcohol problem,” noting that mother’s 
6

completion of programs from her DUI convictions, as well as her 

hospitalization after cutting herself, did not cause her to stop 

drinking. DCFS’s counsel also contended that mother minimized 

the recent domestic violence incident and continued to use 

marijuana despite claiming to be sober. L.’s counsel also opposed 

releasing the child to mother, citing mother’s pattern of drinking 

and her recent drug testing with “high levels of marijuana 

followed by a no-show.” Mother’s counsel argued for releasing L. 

to mother, based on mother’s recent sobriety and her willingness 

to cooperate with DCFS to put a safety plan in place. 

Citing mother’s testimony, the court found she lacked 

insight “into her true substance addiction issue,” and that “when 

mother has excessive amounts of alcohol, it leads to violent and 

self-harming behaviors.” Accordingly, the court found by clear 

and convincing evidence that removal of L. from mother was 

necessary and that DCFS made reasonable efforts to prevent 

removal. The court ordered family reunification services and 

monitored visitation for mother. The court set a three-month 

progress report hearing for May 14, 2020 to assess mother’s 

progress and see “if it’s possible to entertain a return to home of 

mother.” Mother timely appealed on February 24, 2020. 

Subsequent Developments

In a May 2020 last-minute information, DCFS reported 

that mother had 17 scheduled drug tests between January 29 and 

May 4, 2020, but failed to test on 10 occasions. The remaining 

seven tests were positive for marijuana. Mother was displaying 

COVID-19 symptoms from mid-March to mid-April. In April, 

DCFS began to make arrangements for alternative placement of 

L. after maternal grandmother stated she intended to return to 

Mexico. Mother agreed to have her boyfriend serve as the
7

caregiver. On May 7, 2020, the boyfriend told DCFS that he no 

longer wished to be L.’s caregiver and had not seen L. since 

“sometime last week.” Maternal great-grandmother reported 

that mother had taken L. from her home on May 4, 2020 in the 

middle of the night, stating that she was taking the child to 

Mexico. 

On May 12, 2020, the court found that mother was at large 

with L. and issued a protective custody warrant for L. and an 

arrest warrant for mother.4

The CSW called mother later that day. Mother answered 

the phone and told the CSW that she was in Mexico and that the 

court was asking too much of her. She told the CSW that she 

could not find a drug and alcohol outpatient program and there 

was “no other way around it.” Mother stated she planned to stay 

in Mexico. When the CSW explained that the court had issued 

warrants for her and for L., mother replied that it did not matter 

because she was never going to return. 

DISCUSSION

Mother challenges the court’s dispositional finding that 

removal was necessary to protect L. from risk of harm. 

Respondent DCFS contends that we should decline to reach the 

merits of mother’s challenge and dismiss the appeal under the 

disentitlement doctrine. We agree with respondent that 

dismissal is warranted.

The disentitlement doctrine refers to a reviewing court’s 

“inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who has refused 

4We granted respondent’s request for judicial notice of the 

court’s May 12, 2020 minute order and May 26, 2020 last minute 

information. 
8

to comply with the orders of the trial court.” (People v. PulucSique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 897.) It “is not a jurisdictional 

doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the 

balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.” 

(Ibid.) “‘The case for application of the doctrine is most evident 

where, as here, the party is a fugitive who refuses to comply with 

court orders or make an appearance despite being given notice 

and an opportunity to appear and be heard.’” (In re Kamelia S.

(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1229 (Kamelia S.), quoting Adoption 

of Jacob C. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 617, 624.)

In the dependency context, given the enormity of the 

interest at stake for a parent, courts have rarely applied the 

disentitlement doctrine to dismiss a parent’s appeal. One key 

exception, however, is where a parent removes the child from the 

jurisdiction in violation of the court’s orders. For example, in 

Kamelia S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1225, a father absconded 

with his daughter after the juvenile court placed the child in 

foster care. The court held the father was barred by the 

disentitlement doctrine from appealing the placement order as 

“[i]t is illogical and inequitable for appellant to seek appellate 

review of the very orders he has blatantly violated.” (Id. at p. 

1227.) The court reasoned that the father’s “intentional absence 

violates the orders of the juvenile court and his secluding the 

minor child undermines and frustrates the entire purpose of the 

dependency law,” making it “virtually impossible for the court to 

extend its protection” to the child at an unknown location. Thus, 

disentitlement was appropriate because the father was “entirely 

responsible for paralyzing the court’s ability to implement the 

procedures intended to benefit the interests of the dependent 

minor. He ‘stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and 
9

processes of the courts of this state.’” (Id. at p. 1229, quoting 

MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277; see also In 

re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 469-471 [applying doctrine to 

dismiss mother’s appeal of jurisdictional findings because she 

“willfully left the jurisdiction with her children while the petition 

was pending”]; In re Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 

Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299 [grandparents could not appeal denial of 

guardianship petition after they caused minor to be removed 

from the jurisdiction in violation of court order]; Adoption of 

Jacob C., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623–624 [barring mother 

who had abducted child from contesting petition to terminate 

mother’s parental rights to other child].)

Mother acknowledges the application of disentitlement to 

cases, such as this one, where a parent appeals a dependency 

order and then “subsequently leaves the jurisdiction with the 

child in violation of the court’s orders.” Nevertheless, she urges 

us to reach the merits of her appeal because the case has been

fully briefed and there is “little to be gained” from dismissing the 

appeal. We find the reasoning of Kamelia S. squarely applicable 

to this case. Mother was an active participant in the underlying 

dependency proceedings until she violated the court’s orders by 

removing L. from his placement and taking him out of the reach 

of the court’s protective powers. Her conduct “undermines and 

frustrates the entire purpose of the dependency law.” (Kamelia 

S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229.) As such, we conclude that 

mother cannot pursue her appeal of the very orders she has 

flagrantly violated. (See In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 

208 [“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 
10

overturn the juvenile court’s orders.”].)

Under the circumstances, the doctrine of disentitlement is 

applicable to mother. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, ACTING P.J.

CURREY, J.