Court Opinion

ID: 9379485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 19:03:20.683873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.018156
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/15/23 In re C.K. CA 2/5
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.K. et al., Persons Coming                                 B313536
Under Juvenile Court Law.
_______________________________                                   (Los Angeles County Super.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                 Ct. No. DK22840A-C)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.Q.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Stephen C. Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed in
part, dismissed in part.
      Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
       Mother appeals from the denial of her latest Welfare and
Institutions Code section 388 petitions, filed two and a half years
after reunification services were terminated.1 At the time of
filing, her oldest child, who we refer to as “daughter,” was two
months shy of adulthood, and her younger children had been in
guardianships for years. We conclude that as to daughter, her
appeal is moot because daughter is now an adult. As to the two
younger children, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision to deny
mother’s petitions without a hearing. The juvenile court acted
within its discretion in finding that mother’s recent, brief
sobriety, considered in the context of her years-long drug abuse,
did not constitute changed circumstances.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1.    Removal and Jurisdiction
       Mother has three children, born August 2003, January
2011, and March 2014. In June 2017, the court sustained
jurisdiction over the children under section 300, subdivisions (a)
and (b), based on mother’s domestic violence in front of the
children, her extensive history of substance abuse, and her
current use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, and
marijuana. As part of her reunification services, the court
ordered mother to complete a six-month inpatient drug program,

1     All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code, unless indicated otherwise.

      This is mother’s second appeal in these dependency cases.
The first appeal was from the August 2020 denial of earlier
section 388 petitions. On August 20, 2021, we affirmed the
juvenile court’s decision in an unpublished opinion (appellate
case No. B307983; 2021 WL 3854771).

                                 2
attend a 12-step program, participate in weekly drug testing,
attend a 52-week batterer’s intervention program, submit to a
psychiatric evaluation, take all prescribed psychotropic
medication, and participate in individual counseling to address
case issues.
      After disposition, mother repeatedly entered and was
repeatedly discharged from drug rehabilitation programs (11
programs in the first 15 months after jurisdiction) and had
multiple relapses. The children remained in foster care. On
October 9, 2018, the juvenile court terminated mother’s
reunification services for all three children, and set their cases for
section 366.26 hearings.
      On May 6, 2019, the juvenile court placed the two younger
children in kinship guardianships.2 The court then terminated
its dependency jurisdiction over them. Daughter remained under
the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and in the care of a maternal
great aunt.

2      “When the juvenile court establishes a kinship
guardianship as it did here [for the two younger children], it
dismisses its jurisdiction under section 366.3 in recognition of the
fact that the kinship guardianship is a permanent plan for the
child and there is no need for ongoing scheduled court and social
services supervision of the placement. (§§ 11361, 11386, subd.
(e).) However, the juvenile court still maintains jurisdiction over
the child as a ward of the legal guardianship and can vacate its
order dismissing its dependency jurisdiction. (§§ 366.3, subds. (a)
& (b), 366.4.)” (In re Priscilla D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1207,
1216.)

                                  3
2.     Mother’s Series of Section 388 Petitions
       a.     March 2020 Petitions
       On March 6, 2020, mother filed section 388 petitions asking
the court to reinstate her reunification services for all three
children and to grant unmonitored visitation.3 Mother stated
that after the termination of her reunification services, she had
completed a parenting class and a domestic violence program,
received a mental health assessment, participated in individual
counseling, and completed a drug rehabilitation program with
after care.
       The hearing was continued several times and eventually
took place on August 12, 2020. The day before the hearing,
DCFS advised the court that mother had tested positive for
methamphetamines and her sober living facility had discharged
her. The juvenile court denied the section 388 petitions as to all
the children and ordered jurisdiction terminated as to the two
younger children. The young children remained placed with their
caregivers. Daughter continued her placement with the maternal
great aunt.
       Mother appealed, and on August 30, 2021, we affirmed the
trial court’s orders in an unpublished opinion (In re C.K. (Aug. 30,
2021, B307983) [nonpub. opn.] 2021 WL 3854771).
       b.     August 2020 Petitions
       On August 26, 2020, mother filed section 388 petitions for
the two youngest children, requesting their guardianships be
terminated and that they be placed with daughter’s caregiver.

3     A month before the March 6, 2020 petitions, the trial court
denied another section 388 petition filed by mother – this time
seeking reunification services for daughter only.

                                 4
The maternal aunt explained that one of the younger sibling’s
caregivers had frustrated visitation between the siblings.
       On September 3, 2020, the juvenile court denied the section
388 petitions without a hearing, but ordered the children’s
counsel to reach out to the guardian to inquire whether
appropriate sibling visits could occur.
       c.    February 2021 Petitions
       On February 8, 2021, mother filed section 388 petitions for
all three children. Mother requested the court reinstate
reunification services and order unmonitored visits with her
children. She stated that she had been sober for almost three
months, and was testing weekly. On February 16, 2021, the
juvenile court denied the petitions without a hearing. The court
found circumstances had not sufficiently changed to justify a
hearing. The court pointed out that mother had not completed
her substance abuse program but was making progress.
3.     The Section 388 Petition at Issue in this Appeal
       On June 9, 2021, mother filed section 388 petitions as to all
three children. Mother requested return of the children to her
custody, or, in the alternative, reinstatement of reunification
services, and/or grant of unmonitored and overnight visitation.
Mother stated her circumstances had changed because she
completed a six-month outpatient program, transitioned from a
sober living home to her own apartment, and had continued
attending counseling and AA meetings. Mother explained that
placing the children in her custody was in their best interest so
they could reside together and be with their biological parent.
       On June 9, 2021, the court denied mother’s petitions
without an evidentiary hearing. The court stated that, as to
daughter, she had been out of mother’s care for four years, would

                                 5
be 18 shortly, and wished to avail herself of extended foster care
services, which the court intended to facilitate. The court found
that it was not in daughter’s best interest to grant mother’s
section 388 petition.
       With respect to the younger children, the court observed
they had been in legal guardianships while mother had been
repeatedly unsuccessful in numerous drug rehabilitation
programs. The court stated: “This is a mother who has been in
and out of, at least to my recollection, five other drug programs
over the last four years. Finally, she has completed one drug
program for six months and that’s wonderful; however, that’s just
partial. I need her to continue in an aftercare program and we
can reassess a [section] 388, but at this time, I’m finding it’s
clearly not in these children’s best interest to grant a [section]
388 even for a hearing. I don’t find a prima facie finding. I’m
denying the [section] 388 as to both of these children.” In its
minute order, the court stated: “The court acknowledges that the
mother has completed a substance abuse program but the court
needs to see the mother’s compliance in her after care and testing
clean noting the mother’s numerous years of drug abuse.”
       Mother timely appealed from the juvenile court’s denials of
her June 2021 section 388 petitions for her three children.
                           DISCUSSION
1.     Mother’s Appeal is Moot as to Daughter
       DCFS asserts mother’s appeal of her section 388 petition as
to daughter is moot because daughter is now an adult. “ ‘[A]n
action that originally was based on a justiciable controversy
cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions have become
moot by subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case
would be without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be

                                6
dismissed.’ ” (In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404.)
“[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.” (In re N.S. (2016)
245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60.)
       We agree mother’s appeal as to daughter is moot. Mother’s
petition sought custody, or at minimum, reinstatement of
reunification services. Because daughter turned 18 years old in
the summer of 2021, DCFS cannot provide mother with further
reunification services; nor can the dependency court award
custody of daughter to mother. (In re K.L. (2012)
210 Cal.App.4th 632, 640 [“the statutory framework does not
allow a parent to reunify with a dependent child who has turned
18 because a parent cannot have physical custody of an adult”].)
Accordingly, there is no effective relief we can provide mother
with regard to her eldest child.
2.     No Abuse of Discretion in Denying the Section 388
       Petitions for the Younger Children Without a Hearing
       Mother argues the trial court erred in denying without a
hearing her section 388 petitions for the younger children.
       a.       Applicable Law and Standard of Review
       “Section 388 allows a parent or other person having an
interest in a dependent child to petition the juvenile court to
change, modify, or set aside any prior order because of changed
circumstance or new evidence. (§ 388, subd. (a).)” (In re Daniel
F. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 701, 711.) “Under section 388, a party
‘need only make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to
proceed by way of a full hearing.’ [Citation.] The prima facie
showing is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by
evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable

                               7
decision on the petition. [Citation.] In determining whether the
petition makes the necessary showing, the court may consider the
entire factual and procedural history of the case. [Citation.] The
petition must be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency.”
(In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 127.)
       “There are two parts to the prima facie showing: The
parent must demonstrate (1) a genuine change of circumstances
or new evidence, and that (2) revoking the previous order would
be in the best interests of the children. [Citation.] If the liberally
construed allegations of the petition do not show changed
circumstances such that the child’s best interests will be
promoted by the proposed change of order, the dependency court
need not order a hearing. [Citation.] We review the juvenile
court’s summary denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of
discretion.” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250.)
       b.     No Abuse of Discretion
       Here, the juvenile court found that mother had failed to
make a prima facie showing under section 388. Specifically,
mother had not shown a significant enough period of sobriety to
justify granting mother’s section 388 petitions. The record
supports the juvenile court’s exercise of discretion.
       It was reasonable for the court to conclude that mother’s
fledgling success in drug rehabilitation was not a material
change in circumstance, considering her years-long addiction and
extensive history of relapses. To be clear, mother sought a
change in custody based on six-to-seven months of sobriety after
nearly four years (42 months) of drug abuse. “ ‘Not every change
in circumstance can justify modification of a prior order.’
[Citation.] The change in circumstances supporting a section 388
petition must be material. . . . In the context of a substance

                                  8
abuse problem that has repeatedly resisted treatment in the past,
a showing of materially changed circumstances requires more
than a relatively brief period of sobriety or participation in yet
another program.” (In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 112, 120–
121.) The juvenile court reasonably concluded mother’s recent
success, especially in the context of her recent relapse, was
insufficient to show either a material change in circumstance or
that revoking the previous order was in the best interests of the
children. (In re Anthony W., supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 250.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s orders as to the two younger siblings
are affirmed. The appeal of the juvenile court’s order denying
mother’s section 388 for daughter is dismissed as moot.

                                      RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                        MOOR, J.

                        KIM, J.

                                  9