Filed 7/19/24 In re Michael C. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re MICHAEL C

. et a l

. , P erson s Coming Under th e Juvenile Court
Law B 32 9287

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.N. et al.,

Defendant s and Appellant s

. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CC JP0 3343 A

- C)

APPEAL from order s of the Superior Court of L os Angeles County, Gabriela H. Shapiro

, Temporary Judge

. Dismissed in part and a ffirmed in part

. Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and
Vincent W. Davis , for Defendant and Appellant N.N

.2 Law Office of Robert McLaugh lin and Robert McLaughlin

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant K.R. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Cou nsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Sally Son , Senior Deputy County
Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

As relevant here, N.N. (m o ther) has three children,
Michael C. (born April 2013), Mia M. (born December 2016), and Kylie R. (born December 2020). K.R. (father) is the father of Kylie only.
M other a ppeals the juvenile court’s orders declaring her three children dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code 1
sections 300 , subdivision ( b), and removing the children from her custody under section 361. Father app eal s solely from the dispositional order denying hi s request under section 361.2 for custody of Kylie , which father intends to exercise in New York
where he currently resides

. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a motion to dismiss mother’s appeal, a long with a request for judicial notice. We dismiss mother’s appeal and affirm the court’s disposition orders. The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3

with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with
reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior
Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261

– 12 64 [three

- paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appella te court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)

DISCUSSION

A. M other’s A ppeal is D ismissed

In her opening brief, mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional findings and its orders removing all three children from her custody. At the adjudication hearing on March 23, 2023 , the court declared the children dependents based on the following amended jurisdictional allegations : b

- 1, d

- 1 , j

- 1 : “ [Father] sexually abused the child M ia. On or about 8/18/22 and on prior occasions, [father] fondled and digitally penetrated the child’s vagina, causing the child pain . The mother failed to protect the child when she knew of [father’ s] sexual a buse of the child. The mother allowed [father] to frequent
the child’s home and to have unlimited access to the
child.

. . . ”4 b

- 2, j

- 2: “ On 8/19/2022, [mother] created a detrimental and endangering situation for the five

year old child Mia in that [mot her] failed to provide appropriate supervision for the child, resulting in the child wandering the streets alone wearing only underwear and a blanket wrapped around herself.
Such a detrimental and endangering situation established for the child by the mot her, and the mother’s failure to provide appropriate supervision for the child, endangers the child’s physical health and safety, and creates a detrimental home
envi ron ment, placing the child and the child’s siblings , [Michael and Kylie], at risk of seriou s physical harm, damage and danger. ”

b

- 5, j

- 3 : “ [Mother and father] have a history of engaging in physical and verbal altercations while in the presence of the children. On prior occasions in 2021, the mother and father engaged in verbal
altercations. On prior occasions in 2021, the father attempted to punch the mothe r

. . . . On 2/7/22

, the mother and father engaged in a verbal and physical
altercation where the father punched the mother
once with a c losed fist on the left side of her head.
The f ather shoved the mother by the base of her neck, causing the mother to hit the fence with her
back

. . . . Such violent conduct

. . . endangers the children’s physical health and safety, creates a
detrimental home environment and places the5 children at risk of serious physical harm, damage and danger. ”

T he Department moved to dismiss mother’s appeal , arguing that all of mother’s contentions on appeal were either moot or nonjusticiable. In support of its mot ion to dismiss, t he Department requests judicial notice of the following post

- appeal orders by the juvenile court:

1. On July 27, 2023, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction over Michael and made a custody order giving both parents joint leg al custody, Michael’s father sole physical custody, and mother monitored visits. The custody order took effect on October 13, 2023, when the juvenile court lifted its stay.
2. On November 2, 2023, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction over Mi a and made a custody order giving both parents joint legal custody, Mia’s father sole physical custody, and mother monitored visits. The custody order took effect on December 22, 2023, when the juvenile court lifted its stay.
3. On February 27, 2024, the juv enile court terminated Kylie’s suitable placement order, and placed Kylie in mother’s home, subject to Department supervision.

“A reviewing court must ‘ “decide on a case

- by

- case basis whether subsequent events in a juvenile dependency matter
make a case moot and whether [its] decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding. ” ’ ” ( In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 .) B ecause the juvenile court has terminated dependency jurisdiction over Michael and Mia, mother has not6

appealed the co urt’s termination or custody orders, and mother has not filed any opposition to the Department’s motion to dismiss, we agree that the portions of mother’s appeal pertaining
to those two children are moot. ( In re Gael C. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 220 , 223

– 224 [dismissing appeal of jurisdiction and disposition orders as moot, where parent did not appeal subsequent termi nation of dependency jurisdiction and related custody order].) Even if we were to reach the merits of mother’s appeal as to the two older childr en, there was substantial evidence to support the appealed findings and orders

, based on
the children’s statements to social workers , regarding domestic
violence observed between mother and father and mother permitting father to sleep in the same bed as Mi a after reports of
sexual abuse

. M other’s appeal of the order removing Kylie from her custody is also moot, because Kylie has been returned to mother’s custody. ( In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60 [ mootness

turns on “whether the appellate court can provide any effective
relief if it finds reversible error ” ].) The only contention remaining in mother’s appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support dependency jurisdiction over Kylie. However, the Department argues mother’s entire appeal should be dismissed, based on her f ailure to provide a summary of the significant facts in her brief and to articulate any cogent legal challenge to the second jurisdictional finding

– that mother failed to adequately supervise Mia

. Mother did not file any response to the Department’s
moti on to dismiss

, did not file a reply brief in support of her appeal , and did not request oral argument in this case

. “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of7

the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) We agree with the Department that mother has forfeited any argument that we should reach the merits of her jurisdictional challenge. We see no
reason in the current context to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of mother’s appeal. ( In re D.P., s upra , 14 Cal.5th at p. 287; In re Gael C. , supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at pp. 224

– 225.)

B. Substantial E vidence S upports the C ourt’s O rder
D enying F ather’s R equest for C ustody

“When a juvenile court orders removal of a child from the custodial parent, it must determine whether there is a noncustodial parent who wants to assume custody. If so, the court must ‘place the child with the [noncustodial] parent unless it finds that [such] placement

. . . would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well

- being of the
child

. ’ (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) A finding of detriment must be made by clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.] We review the juvenile court ’ s finding of detriment for substantial evidence,

‘ bearing in mind the h eightened burden of proof ’ in the trial

court. ” ( In re Solomon B. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 69, 74

– 75 .)
F ather has not appealed the jurisdictional findings against him. Nevertheless, f

ather argues that aside from his status as an offending parent , there was insufficient evidence of detriment for the court to deny his request under section 361.2 to grant him custody of Kylie in New York. F ather argues that his alleged
sexual abuse of Kylie’s five

- year old half

- sibling Mia was not frequent or severe enough to support a finding that granting him custody of Kylie in New York would place her at risk of harm . He
also argues that any risk posed by the domestic violence between8

him and mother was eliminated because he and mother have ended their relationship and he has moved to New York. Father’s argument misses the mark

. Even accounting for the height en ed burden of proof needed to support the trial court’s determination that placing Kylie in father’s custody would be detrimental to her safety, protection, and her physical and
emotional well

- being

, the record includes substantial evidence to support the court’s order denying fath er’s request for custody of Kylie under section 361.2. Kylie’s young age, evidence of violence in father’s relationship with mother

, and evidence that father
sexual ly abuse d Mia, provides ample support for t he court’s denial of father’s request . The corr ectness of the juvenile court’s decision is further supported by the larger context , which
included the absence of any real effort by father to engage with the Department outside of limited monitored visits , his move to New York just two months before the court’s disposition order,
and his refusal to participate in any services during the six
months leading up to the last part of the disposition hearing. Kylie was only 22 months old when she was detained from parental custody in August 2022 , and father was not in contact with the Department until the day before his arraignment on October 19, 2022

. H e initially wanted a paternity test, stating
that mother had told him Kylie was not his child. After the court
ordered monitored visits between father and K ylie, father’s girlfriend refused to monitor the visits and father could not identify an alternate monitor for the Department. The Department arranged for video calls, monitored by Kylie’s caregiver, but father was not able to follow the visitation
schedu le despite efforts to accommodate him. The caregiver reported that on at least one video call, father appeared to be9

under the influence (his eyes were red) and he was distracted because he was walking around.
Father did have consistent and positive in

- person monitored visits from November 2022 through March 2023, but absent a court order, he declined to participate in any programs such as sexual abuse prevention or dome stic violence batterers programs despite the pending allegations against him . Inste ad, he purchased a home and planned to move to New York with Kylie, although he was open to receiving family maintenance services in New York if Kylie was released to his care. His last
in

- person visit before moving to New York took place on
March 22, 202 3, and after that he was inconsistent with telephone visits. The record evidence is sufficient to support the court’s determination that placing Kylie with father posed a risk of
detriment.

DISPOSITION

Mother’s appeal is dismissed. The disposition orders are affirmed

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

M OOR, J.
We concur:

BAKER, Acting P.J. KIM , J.