Court Opinion

ID: 9895837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 20:04:33.782559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:20.705253
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/8/23 In re D.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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.C. et al., Persons Coming                              B320043 c/w B323476
 Under Juvenile Court Law.
 _______________________________                                (Los Angeles County Super.
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Ct. No. 22CCJP00301A-C)
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 L.G.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Affirmed.
      Elizabeth Alexander, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                     ________________________
                       INTRODUCTION
       L.G. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order exerting
dependency jurisdiction over her three children, the related
dispositional order, and the order at the six-month review
hearing continuing the placement of mother’s two youngest
children outside mother’s care. None of mother’s arguments has
merit, so we affirm.
        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1.     Mother and Father’s History of Domestic Violence,
       Mother’s Alcohol Consumption, and Impact on
       Children
       Mother has four children, D.C. (born 2010), T.C. (born
2018), A.C. (born 2020), and an adult daughter who is not the
subject of this appeal. D.C’s father is C.C. A.C and T.C’s father
is Aaron C. (father). Neither father lived with mother at any
time relevant to the appeal. Father and mother have a history of
domestic violence. In March 2019, father started a physical fight
with mother that caused T.C. to fall out of mother’s arms onto the
floor, prompting mother to take the infant to the hospital. On
December 9, 2021, father “dragged [mother] all over the street
and bit [her] nose.” D.C. reported that the domestic violence
between father and mother occurs “all over the street” outside the
home, and that the then 11-year-old witnessed the violence from
the window of their apartment. D.C. stated she had seen mother
and father push each other, and her adult sister hit father with a
broom after father hit mother. D.C. also reported that mother
drank alcohol “almost every time [mother and father] get into an
argument.”
       Mother’s neighbor reported that mother is “always drinking
with [father] in the car or possibly in the home,” and she often

                                2
leaves the children home with their adult sister. The adult
daughter who lives with mother — D.C.’s older sister — reported
that mother and father engage in domestic violence outside the
home and that mother drinks alcohol outside the home and
returns home drunk.
       On December 17, 2021, father “broke into [mother’s] house”
and took T.C. from the home while mother was at her
grandfather’s birthday celebration. The same day, the
Department of Children and Family Services (Department)
received a referral alleging mother is an alcoholic who leaves her
children home alone.
       When father spoke with the Department on December 28,
2021, he reported that mother provides excellent care for the
children. About one week later, father rescinded his prior
statement, explaining that he had not previously been able to
speak freely because mother was there. He reported that he was
in fact concerned because mother is “an alcoholic,” “leaves the
house for days at a time,” and “doesn’t clean.”
       C.C., D.C.’s father, also reported concerns about mother
because of her history of alcohol abuse. He reported that when
D.C. visits him, she worries and wants to return home to help
with her siblings. D.C. was reluctant to share with her father
what went on in mother’s home, and sometimes cried when she
did tell him. D.C. shared that knives were brought out during
one physical altercation between father and mother. C.C. stated
that he took D.C. to see a doctor in June 2021 after learning she
had not been seen by a doctor in six years. He brought her for a
second appointment a couple months later for her eczema flare-
up. Although C.C. gave mother the doctor’s prescription for D.C.,
mother never picked up the medication.

                                3
       D.C. was “absent a lot” from school. After D.C. had not
been at school for several days, the school tried to contact mother
on October 3, 2021, but could not reach her. D.C. returned to
school on October 3 with no note or explanation.
       Mother’s criminal history includes a DUI in 2010 and
disorderly conduct, intoxication, and carrying a loaded firearm in
April 2021. Father has an extensive criminal history, including
trespassing, battery, domestic violence, kidnapping, and
possession of a firearm.
2.     Removal and Filing of Petition
       On January 24, 2022, the Department filed a petition
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleging under
subdivisions (a) and (b) that mother and father have a history of
engaging in violent physical altercations, including in D.C.’s
presence, which places the children at risk of serious physical
harm, damage, and danger, and under subdivision (b) that
mother has a history of substance abuse and is a current abuser
of alcohol rendering her incapable of caring for the children.1
       At the January 27, 2022, detention hearings, the juvenile
court removed D.C., A.C., and T.C. from mother and placed them
with their respective fathers. The court also ordered weekly drug
and alcohol testing for mother, and granted mother two, two-hour
monitored visits per week. After three consecutive clean tests,
mother’s visits would become unmonitored, provided she
continued to test clean.

1     All future statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                4
3.    Mother Moves in with Maternal Grandmother
      On February 2, 2022, mother reported that she would be
moving in with maternal grandmother and staying for a month or
two. On February 4, 2022, the Department assessed maternal
grandmother’s home. The living room had 10–15 medium boxes
in the corner. There was a bedroom, but it contained so many
items that the door could not be opened, and the Department
could not enter the bedroom to assess it. There was an
unassembled toddler bed in the apartment, which mother
reported T.C. and A.C. would share if they were returned to her.
Mother told the Department that she would assemble the bed
that evening, and the Department asked her to send a photo of
the bed once she did. The Department never received a photo.
4.    T.C. and A.C. Are Removed from Their Father
      On February 9, 2022, the Department received a referral
alleging that, although T.C. and A.C. had been placed with
father, father was homeless. Father had told the court he lived
with the reporting party in Las Vegas, NV. The reporting party
“was concerned because father was drinking alcohol excessively,”
and “would leave the children unattended while falling asleep.”
“Father was told he had to leave the home and then he began
making threats of harm . . . .” He then stumbled and knocked
T.C. over, took A.C. and T.C. and put them in his car, broke car
windows, stabbed car tires, and drove off before the police
arrived.2
      The next day, father brought T.C. and A.C. to the
Department for placement and stated he was unable to care for
them.

2
     It is unclear from the record whether father vandalized his
own car or another person’s car.

                               5
       On February 17, 2022, the juvenile court granted the
Department’s ex parte application to remove A.C. and T.C. from
father and have them suitably placed.
5.     Jurisdictional and Dispositional Report
       The Department interviewed then 12-year-old D.C. in early
February 2022. She reported that mother and father argue and
engage in physical fights, but not inside the apartment. When
asked whether she had seen father dragging mother down the
street or hitting mother, she responded “no.” D.C. reported that
mother “kind of” has “a problem with alcohol,” but that “she does
not do it every day.” She also explained that mother drinks
alcohol “sometimes in the afternoon; sometimes at night,” and
that she “does not act different” when she drinks, but “would get
kind of tired.”
The Department also interviewed mother in early February 2022,
and she reported that domestic violence between father and her
“happen[s] way too often and [she is] not the abuser,” and just
tries to defend herself. Mother reported that father “is violent
and that he has a problem with drinking” and “becomes violent”
when intoxicated. Despite the violence, mother stated she had
“always tried to allow [father] to be a part of the children’s lives,”
and that “she thought she was doing the right thing” by allowing
father to see them. When asked why mother did not obtain a
restraining order following the 2019 incident in which father hit
mother, and infant T.C. fell to the ground, mother replied that
although “she initially obtained a temporary restraining order,”
she “did not realize how it worked and never pursued it.” The
Department asked about the most recent restraining order
mother had obtained against father, and mother “reported that
she obtained a temporary restraining order, but did not get a

                                  6
permanent one, because she was unaware of how they worked.”
Mother reported never having been to a domestic violence
shelter; she explained that “usually, she just moves to a different
location, but eventually she tells the fathers where she is
residing.” Mother also explained that her DUI from 2010 “was
not abuse of alcohol,” but rather she had only had “a little bit of
wine and was moving [her] car.” Regarding her 2021 arrest for
disorderly conduct and public intoxication, mother explained that
she “was not intoxicated,” but that the police said that she was
“just because [she] had an outburst.” Mother said that father “is
a trigger for her to drink,” but reported “that she does not have a
problem with alcohol and only would drink occasionally.” Mother
also explained that when she drinks alcohol, “the children are
usually in the bed and they are usually already fed, bathed and
asleep.”
       When the Department interviewed father, he reported that
mother drank alcohol “throughout her pregnancy,” and “that
mother’s drinking has become worse in the past six months.”
Father stated that mother “went to jail in . . . April of 2021
because she had a gun and she was drunk in the streets.”
6.     Jurisdictional Hearing
       The jurisdictional hearing took place on February 25, 2022.
The Department reached a settlement with father, under which
the subdivision (b) count would be sustained against father as
amended to omit details about the December 9, 2021, domestic
violence incident. The subdivision (a) count would be dismissed.
The juvenile court sustained both counts against mother under
subdivision (b).

                                 7
7.     Dispositional Hearing
       At the March 7, 2022, dispositional hearing, the juvenile
court ordered D.C., T.C., and A.C. removed from mother—D.C.
placed with C.C., and T.C. and A.C. suitably placed with the
Department. The court granted mother unmonitored visits and
ordered her to undergo a full drug and alcohol treatment
program, submit to weekly drug testing, participate in a 12-step
program, and complete a parenting course and domestic violence
program for victims.
8.     Notice of Appeal
       On April 19, 2022, mother filed a timely notice of appeal
from the jurisdictional findings and disposition order.
9.     Six-month Review Period
       Mother attended AA, a substance abuse program, domestic
violence classes, and parenting classes. Mother’s substance
abuse counselor reported on August 5, 2022, that mother “ha[d]
made some progress,” but that “it[ had] been up and down.”
Mother “tested positive [for alcohol] a few times,” including once
in June and once in July. Mother reported learning from the AA
program that “alcoholism is a disease that can be maintained,”
and from the domestic violence classes the “red flags of unhealthy
relationships” and the importance of “set[ting] boundaries.” She
also reported that “now [she] need[ed] to apologize to [her]
children for being in an abusive relationship.” Mother’s AA
sponsor reported that mother’s classes are “helping her,” that
mother “will be ok,” and that she “is doing a lot better now that
[father] is in jail and he’s not around.”3 Between January 2022
and July 2022, mother tested negative on all of her random

3     Father was arrested on May 6, 2022.

                                8
weekly drug and alcohol tests, except for three days on which she
was a “no show.”
10. Section 364/Six-month Review Hearing
      On September 9, 2022, the juvenile court heard mother’s
section 364 petition for the return of her children and also
conducted the six-month review hearing. The court awarded
mother and C.C. joint legal and physical custody of D.C.,
terminated jurisdiction over D.C., but stayed the termination
pending the issuance of the juvenile custody order.
      As to T.C. and A.C., the court found that mother’s progress
with her case plan had been “substantial,” continued jurisdiction
and reunification services, and kept the order of suitable
placement in place, finding “by clear and convincing evidence
that return of [T.C. and A.C.] to the physical custody of [mother]
would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child[ren],
creating a continued necessity for appropriateness of the current
placement.”
11. Notices of Appeal
      Mother filed her second notice of appeal on September 7,
2022—this one from the orders made at the six-month review
hearing. Two days later, the juvenile court entered the formal
custody order and terminated jurisdiction as to D.C. Mother
timely filed an amended notice of appeal on September 14, 2022.
Upon mother’s request, we consolidated her appeal from the
juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings with her appeal from the
finding at the six-month review hearing that it would be
detrimental to return A.C. and T.C. to her custody.

                                9
                         DISCUSSION
1.     Justiciability
       As a threshold matter, the Department asserts that
mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings is moot because
father did not challenge the jurisdictional findings related to his
conduct. We disagree. Where, as here, “a jurisdictional finding
‘serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also
challenged on appeal’ [citation], the appeal is not moot.” (In re
D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283.) The Department is correct that
“[t]he problem that the juvenile court seeks to address [in its
dispositional order] need not be described in the sustained section
300 petition.” (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311
[rejecting a father’s challenge to an order requiring him to attend
sexual abuse counseling].) But that observation is irrelevant
here, where the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings plainly
formed the basis for its dispositional order insofar as it removed
the children from mother and ordered mother to attend a drug
and alcohol treatment program, submit to weekly drug testing,
participate in a 12-step program, and complete a domestic
violence program for victims. Those findings were also the basis
of the court’s denial of mother’s section 364 petition in which she
asked that two of her children be returned to her. Accordingly,
we address mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings on
the merits.
2.     The Jurisdictional Findings Were Supported by
       Substantial Evidence
       Mother asserts that the petition must be dismissed “in its
entirety” as to her because “there was no defined risk of harm to
all three children.”

                                10
       A juvenile court may exert jurisdiction over a child under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1), if it finds by a preponderance of
the evidence that “ ‘[t]he 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
or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child,’ ” the
willful or negligent failure of the parent to provide the child with
adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or the
inability of the parent to provide regular care for the minor due to
the parent’s mental illness, developmental disability or substance
abuse.’ ” (In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561.)
       “The relevant inquiry under section 300, subdivision (b)(1),
is whether circumstances at the time of the jurisdictional hearing
“ ‘ “subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.” ’ ” (In re L.B.
(2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 402, 411 (L.B.); In re T.V. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133.) “To establish a defined risk of harm
at the time of the hearing, there ‘must be some reason beyond
mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.’ ”
(L.B., at p. 411, quoting In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142,
1146 (D.L.); see also In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th
1376, 1383 [“the court need not wait until a child is seriously
abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary
to protect the child”].) “The court may consider past events in
deciding whether a child currently needs the court’s protection.”
(Ibid.) “[W]e must uphold the court’s [jurisdictional] findings
unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all
conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable
inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is no
substantial evidence to support the findings.” (In re J.N. (2010)
181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1022.)

                                  11
      There is no dispute that domestic violence occurred
between father and mother: D.C., her adult sister, mother, and
father all reported the same. “[I]n a domestic violence situation,
past violence is highly probative of the risk that violence may
recur.” (L.B., supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 411.) In 2019, while
mother was holding infant T.C., father pushed mother, knocking
T.C. to the ground and prompting mother to take T.C. to the
hospital. In December 2021, mother reported that father dragged
her through the street and bit her nose.
      The court’s implied finding of a defined risk of harm was
based on even more compelling evidence—including mother’s own
reports—that “mother and [father] repeatedly engage in domestic
violence.” (Italics added.) That is, the instances of domestic
violence between father and mother were not merely isolated
incidents from the distant past, but were ongoing; mother herself
reported—in the weeks preceding the jurisdictional hearing—
that the domestic violence “does happen way too often.”
      Mother urges that there was no defined risk of harm to the
children because she “was not in a relationship with [father]” and
acknowledged the family needed “to stay away from [father].”
But this ignores the evidence—including father’s and mother’s
own reports—that father has issues with “jealousy” and that
violence between them had occurred during arguments about
them “no longer [being] together.”
      What is more, mother reported that she did not pursue
permanent restraining orders after the 2019 incident in which
father hit mother, knocking T.C. to the ground, or after the 2021
incident in which father dragged her on the street and bit her.
To the contrary, Mother reported “that in spite of the domestic
violence, she has always tried to allow [father] to be part of the

                               12
children’s lives.” D.C. told the Department that father and
mother get into arguments every two to three weeks. D.C. also
disclosed to C.C. that knives were present during one fight
between father and mother, and that another time mother’s adult
daughter hit father with a broom to defend mother after father
had hit her. Taken together, this evidence established “reason
beyond mere speculation” to believe the domestic violence would
recur. (D.L., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 1146.)
       The juvenile court’s finding that mother’s alcohol use posed
a defined risk of harm was also supported by substantial
evidence: Mother’s adult daughter reported that mother would
drink outside the home and return home inebriated. Mother’s
neighbor reported that “mother is always drinking,” yelling, and
cussing, and that mother often leaves the children home with
their adult sister. C.C. reported that mother left D.C. at school
one day in January of 2022, and the school reported that D.C.
had various unexplained absences. C.C. took D.C. to see a doctor
after learning that she had not seen a doctor in six years.
Mother’s criminal history includes a DUI, disorderly conduct, and
carrying a loaded firearm.
       When the Department interviewed mother before the
jurisdictional hearing, she reported “never [drinking] to the point
of being inebriated.” Particularly “where the parent denies there
is a problem,” “[a] court is entitled to infer past conduct will
continue.” (In re K.B. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 593, 605; see also In
re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot
correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”]; In re V.L. (2020)
54 Cal.App.5th 147, 156.) In support of her argument that there
was no defined risk from her alcohol use, mother cites the
Department’s recommendation of unmonitored visitation for

                                13
mother and D.C. and D.C’s counsel’s request that D.C. be ordered
to the home of both C.C. and mother. But neither the
Department’s recommendation nor counsel’s request negates the
contrary substantial evidence of risk of harm. Mother also cites
her three consecutive negative drug and alcohol tests. Mother
essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence which we cannot, and
do not, undertake. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 641.)
       Finally, mother asserts that the Department “wrote the
children were healthy,” and points out that “mother had been the
primary caregiver of all three children their entire lives.” Again,
this assertion does not undermine the substantial evidence that
supports the juvenile court’s order. Specifically, “the court need
not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume
jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child.” (In re
Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383.)
3.     Mother Has Forfeited Her Argument That the Six-
       month Review Finding of Detriment Was Not
       Supported by Substantial Evidence
       Mother argues that the juvenile court’s continued removal
of T.C. and A.C. from mother’s custody at the six-month review
hearing was not supported by substantial evidence. The
Department responds that mother has waived this argument
under the doctrine of invited error. We agree that mother’s claim
is forfeited.
       “Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its
own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on
appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that
error.” (In re G.P. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1193.)
       At the six-month review hearing, mother’s counsel
specifically asked the juvenile court “to grant mother overnight

                                14
visits at the current caregiver’s home in Lancaster,” claiming
that “she is considering the best interest of the children here in
asking that those overnights take place at the caregiver’s home so
as not to disrupt the children’s regular routine and schedule that
they have established there.” Mother’s counsel added: “We do
think this is an appropriate request at this point, considering
mother’s progress in her case plan. We would just ask the
Department to have discretion to further liberalize those visits.”
The record leaves no room for dispute that the error mother
claims on appeal—if an error at all—was one that she invited
when she specifically requested that the juvenile court grant her
overnight visits at the caretaker’s house and did not object to the
court’s decision not to return custody of the children to her.
       In her reply brief, mother suggests that in the absence of
her “stipulation” that the children not be returned to her, her
objection at the March 7, 2022, hearing “to the court not making
a home of parent mother order” extended to the September 6,
2022, six-month review hearing. She cites no authority for a so-
called “standing objection” procedure that continues from hearing
to hearing. Such a rule would make no sense in juvenile
proceedings where conditions often change from month to month,
and the then-present situation of the parties is critical to the
court’s orders. The reporter’s transcript from the September 6,
2022, hearing shows that mother had no objection to—and indeed
requested that—A.C. and T.C. remain placed with their caretaker
with mother having overnight visits in caretaker’s home.

                                15
                       DISPOSITION
    The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.

                                        RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                MOOR, J.

                KIM, J.

                              16