Court Opinion

ID: 9353815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 20:02:10.970424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:55.455439
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/11/23 In re George A. CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

 In re GEORGE A., a Person                                    B312494
 Coming Under the Juvenile
 Court Law.                                                   (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No.
                                                               20LJJP00136B)
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 GEORGE A.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Juvenile Court Referee.
Dismissed.
       Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
       Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel and Aileen Wong, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                      _____________________________
       The juvenile court sustained a dependency petition
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivision (b)(1),1 alleging Nancy A. and George A., Jr., the
parents of George A., III, had a history of domestic violence and
George, Jr. had endangered George, III by being under the
influence of marijuana while caring for the child. At the
jurisdiction/disposition hearing the court declared George, III a
dependent child of the court, removed him from his father’s
custody and placed him with Nancy. At the same hearing the
court terminated jurisdiction, staying its ruling until a final
custody and visitation order could be filed. The final custody and
visitation order awarded joint legal custody of George, III to his
parents and sole physical custody to Nancy, with George, Jr.
limited to monitored visitation. On appeal George, Jr. argues the
court’s jurisdiction findings and removal order at disposition were
not supported by substantial evidence. Because we cannot grant
George, Jr. any effective relief, we dismiss the appeal.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      1. The Petition and First Amended Petition
     George, III, now five years old, has adrenal cancer, Cushing
Syndrome, cirrhosis of the liver and a history of kidney and lung

1     Statutory references are to this code.

                                 2
complications. He has a gastrostomy tube in his stomach
through which he receives medication multiple times each day. A
nurse comes to the home for eight hours per day, five days a
week, to provide respite care. As of early 2020, when George, III
was almost three years old, he had the physical function of a
seven-month-old.
       Nancy and George, Jr. had been in a relationship for
approximately 10 years that ended in 2019; however, they
continued to live together for financial reasons. On October 22,
2019 Nancy obtained a temporary custody order for George, III
and a temporary restraining order protecting Nancy, George, III
and Nancy’s then-nine-year-old daughter from George, Jr. Later
that day, Nancy and a friend attempted to serve the temporary
orders on George, Jr. in the family home. According to Nancy
and her friend, George, Jr. became threatening and belligerent.
George, Jr. called his father to intervene. When he arrived, the
grandfather pushed, slapped and punched Nancy, trying to grab
George, III away from her. They fought over the child until the
grandfather pulled George, III away from Nancy and threw the
child onto the couch. Nancy called the police, and George, Jr. and
his father left the home. The responding police officers made a
referral to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services.
       While the Department was investigating the referral,
another incident occurred. On November 16, 2019 George, III
was spending the weekend with his father. George, Jr. should
have called Nancy in the evening, so she could assist over the
phone with the administration of the child’s medication. As the
time for George, III’s medication drew near, Nancy could not
reach George, Jr. and became concerned. She and her daughter

                                3
went to George, Jr.’s home, but he did not respond when they
knocked loudly on the front door. Nancy went to the window of
the bedroom and saw George, Jr. passed out on the bed and
George, III on the bed crying. Seeing Nancy, the child tried to
reach for her and fell off the bed. Nancy yelled at George, Jr. to
wake up. George, Jr. finally woke up, but appeared confused and
disoriented. Nancy told him to pass the child to her through the
window, which he did. George, Jr. then went back to sleep.
Nancy was unable to rouse him further to get the child’s
medication. Nancy had her daughter climb through the window
and unlock the front door, so Nancy could come inside and
retrieve George, III’s medication. Nancy later told social workers
that, when she entered, the kitchen smelled like marijuana. She
also reported that George, Jr. usually passed out when he used
marijuana. A few hours after Nancy took George, III from the
home, George, Jr. called her and had no recollection of the events.
       The Department filed a dependency petition under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1), on February 26, 2020, alleging
George, Jr. had created a detrimental and endangering situation
by being unresponsive while caring for George, III. At the
detention hearing George, III was removed from George, Jr.’s
custody and released to Nancy.
       On May 27, 2020 the Department filed a first amended
petition that added language to the petition alleging that
George, Jr. had been under the influence of marijuana at the
time of the November 2019 incident. The amended petition also
added allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a)
and (b)(1), regarding the October 2019 domestic violence incident.
The new allegations stated George, III had been exposed to a
violent altercation between Nancy and the paternal grandfather

                                 4
and Nancy and George, Jr. had a history of engaging in violent
verbal altercations in the presence of George, III.2
      2. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
       The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on May 13,
2021. George, Jr. requested dismissal of the counts pertaining to
him, arguing the domestic violence incident had to do with his
father, not him, and the marijuana use alleged was a one-time
incident that would not recur. Nancy requested dismissal of the
petition. She argued she had been the victim of domestic violence
and had been appropriately taking care of George, III for more
than a year without incident.
       The juvenile court dismissed the section 300,
subdivision (a), allegation and sustained the two
subdivision (b)(1) allegations pertaining to George, III.
Proceeding to disposition the court ordered George, III placed
with Nancy. The court also stated it intended to terminate
jurisdiction and enter a custody order granting sole physical
custody to Nancy.
       3. The Termination of Jurisdiction and the Custody Order
       On May 18, 2021 the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction
and entered a custody order awarding sole physical custody to
Nancy and joint legal custody to Nancy and George, Jr. The
order specified George, Jr. would have a minimum of nine hours
per week of monitored visitation. The order further explained the
visits were to be monitored because George, Jr. had failed to

2    The amended petition also contained two allegations
pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), pertaining to Nancy’s
daughter, which are not at issue in this appeal.

                                5
make substantial progress in his case plan, including individual
counseling and drug testing.
     4. The Notice of Appeal and Motion To Dismiss
      George, Jr. filed a timely notice of appeal from the
jurisdiction findings and disposition order on May 17, 2021.
      On the same day it filed its respondent’s brief, the
Department moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the
termination of jurisdiction and custody order, entered the day
after George, Jr. filed his notice of appeal, and George’s Jr.’s
failure to appeal the termination and custody order rendered the
appeal moot.
      In opposition George, Jr. argued he had in fact appealed
the termination of jurisdiction and custody order because the
juvenile court had announced its intention to terminate
jurisdiction at the same hearing at which it made the orders from
which George, Jr. filed his notice of appeal.
      We denied the motion without prejudice, stating the issue
would be reconsidered after full briefing on the case issues.
                          DISCUSSION
       George, Jr. argues the juvenile court’s findings he placed
George, III at substantial risk of serious harm based on domestic
violence and marijuana use were not supported by substantial
evidence. George, Jr. does not challenge the finding that Nancy’s
involvement in incidents of domestic violence with both him and
his father also placed George, III at risk of harm. That finding
provides an independent basis for affirming dependency
jurisdiction over George, III regardless of any alleged error in the
findings as to George, Jr. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484,
1492, [jurisdiction finding involving one parent is good against
both; “‘“the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent

                                 6
bring [him or her] within one of the statutory definitions of a
dependent”’”]; see In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452;
In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 310-311.)
      As a result, even if we struck the section 300,
subdivision (b)(1), findings as to George, Jr., that decision would
not affect the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over George, III and its
authority to enter all reasonable orders necessary to protect him,
including orders binding on George, Jr. that address conduct not
sustained in the petition. (In re Briana V., supra,
236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311 [“The problem that the juvenile court
seeks to address need not be described in the sustained
section 300 petition. [Citation.] In fact, there need not be a
jurisdictional finding as to the particular parent upon whom the
court imposes a dispositional order”]; In re I.A., supra,
201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1492 [“[a] jurisdictional finding involving
the conduct of a particular parent is not necessary for the court to
enter orders binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction
has been established”]; see generally § 362, subd. (a) [the juvenile
court “may make any and all reasonable orders for the care,
supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the
child”].)
      Notwithstanding this independent basis for dependency
jurisdiction, George, Jr. urges us to consider his appeal on the
merits, contending the findings against him served as the basis
for the court’s disposition order, which he is also challenging on
appeal. As George, Jr. argues, in limited circumstances
reviewing courts have exercised their discretion to consider an
appeal challenging jurisdiction findings despite the existence of
an unchallenged ground for jurisdiction when the jurisdiction
findings “serve[] as the basis for dispositional orders that are also

                                  7
challenged on appeal.” (In re J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 4;
see In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917; In re Drake M.
(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 763.) Nevertheless, because
George, Jr. is no longer subject to any orders made at disposition,
which have been superseded by the juvenile court’s termination
of jurisdiction and entry of a final custody order, his challenge to
the disposition order does not warrant the exercise of discretion
to address the jurisdiction findings against him.
       Finally, to the extent George, Jr. argues we should address
the merits of his argument regarding jurisdiction because it
served as the basis for the final custody order, this argument too
is unavailing. For an allegedly erroneous jurisdiction finding to
be reviewable after termination of jurisdiction, an appeal from
the orders terminating jurisdiction and awarding custody is
necessary. “Unless the appellate court reverses or vacates the
order terminating dependency, the juvenile court has no
jurisdiction to conduct further hearings in the now-closed case,
including modification of its custody order.” (In re Rashad D.
(2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 164.)
       George, Jr. argues he has, in fact, appealed the termination
and custody order. However, even if the notice of appeal filed
after the hearing at which the court stated its intent to terminate
jurisdiction, but before that order was entered, was sufficient to
preserve the issue for appeal,3 George, Jr. has not made any legal

3     George, Jr. checked the box on the Judicial Council’s
approved form JV-800, notice of appeal-juvenile, stating his
intent to appeal the juvenile court’s section 360 declaration of
dependency and removal of custody from a parent, as well as the
section 300 jurisdiction findings. The notice contained no

                                 8
or factual argument challenging the custody order.4 In
particular, he has not addressed why the custody order was not
in George, III’s best interest or explained how the juvenile court
abused its discretion in awarding sole physical custody to Nancy
or limiting him to monitored visitation. (See In re John W. (1996)
41 Cal.App.4th 961, 965 [when making a juvenile court custody
order “it is the best interests of the child, in the context of the
peculiar facts of the case before the court, which are paramount”];
see also In re C.W. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863 [juvenile court
custody and visitation orders reviewed for abuse of discretion].)
Accordingly, George, Jr. has presented no basis on which we
could reverse the termination of jurisdiction and custody order
and, therefore, no basis on which we could provide any effective
relief in this appeal. (See In re Rashad D., supra, 63 Cal.App.5th
at p. 163 [“‘[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 A.B.
(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1364 [“‘[w]hen no effective relief can
be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed’”]; In re
Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 [“‘[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

indication he intended to challenge termination of jurisdiction or
the custody order that would be, but was not yet, entered.
4     Because the court’s assumption of jurisdiction based on
Nancy’s actions remains unchallenged, the court’s subsequent
decision to terminate jurisdiction was necessarily within its
authority.

                                   9
without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be
dismissed’”].)
                         DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                           PERLUSS, P. J.

      We concur:

            SEGAL, J.

            FEUER, J.

                                 10