Court Opinion

ID: 9839694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 19:04:13.257432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:25.550081
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/13/23 In re Alexa S. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Alexa S., a Person Coming                              B316979
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                              (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No.
                                                              21CCJP04693A
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 JUAN D.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed.
      Karriem Baker, under appointment for the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Dylan Roy, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                      _______________________
      The juvenile court removed then-infant Alexa S. from the
custody of her father, Juan D., and ordered family enhancement
services after it sustained a petition pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, former subdivision (b)(1) (failure to
          1
protect), finding that Juan had sexually abused Alexa’s mother,
Dolores R., when Dolores was 13 years old and Juan was 24 years
old, which led to Alexa’s birth and criminal charges against Juan
for statutory rape, and that he had violated court orders
prohibiting him from contacting Dolores. While acknowledging
the undisputed evidence of sexual abuse, Juan contends on
appeal there was no evidence Alexa was at any risk of serious
physical harm to support the court’s jurisdiction finding and
disposition order. Juan’s jurisdiction challenge has been mooted
by subsequent events. We affirm the disposition order.

1
       The Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300, effective January 1, 2023, in part by rewriting
subdivision (b)(1), to now specify in separate subparagraphs
various ways in which a child may come within the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court as a result of the failure or inability of the
child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or care for the
child.
        Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.

                                  2
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       1. The Section 300 Petition and Detention Proceeding
       In October 2021 the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition alleging
Juan’s sexual abuse of Dolores and his failure to abide by no-
contact orders placed Alexa at substantial risk of serious physical
harm (§ 300, former subd. (b)(1)). The petition also alleged under
section 300, former subdivision (b)(1), that Dolores suffered from
depression and suicidal ideation that rendered her unable to care
for Alexa and placed Alexa at substantial risk of serious physical
harm.
       According to the Department’s detention report filed
October 2021, Juan and Dolores met when she was 12 and one-
half years old and became sexually intimate when she was
13 years old and he was 24 years old. Juan told Dolores to keep
their relationship secret because he could get into trouble. A few
months after their physical relationship began, Dolores
discovered she was pregnant. Juan did not want the baby; but,
by the time Dolores learned she was pregnant, it was too late in
the pregnancy for Dolores to obtain an abortion.
       In April 2021, when Alexa was born, Juan initially told the
Department he was not Alexa’s father. Dolores, the subject of a
                                                                2
separate dependency proceeding, was then living in foster care.
     In May 2021 the Department obtained Juan’s and Dolores’s
consent to voluntary family maintenance services. Juan and

2
      A separate section 300 petition alleged, among other
things, Dolores’s mother had failed to protect her from Juan’s
sexual abuse. That petition was sustained in August 2021 and is
not at issue in this appeal.

                                 3
Dolores agreed to have no contact with each other. When Alexa,
born several weeks premature, was released from the hospital,
she and Dolores lived together with Dolores’s foster parents.
      In August 2021 after Juan’s arrest on charges of statutory
rape, Dolores exhibited signs of severe depression and expressed
thoughts of suicide. Dolores told the Department Juan and his
family had blamed her for exposing their sexual relationship and
placing Juan in legal jeopardy. Dolores said Juan had made clear
to her he wanted “nothing to do with this baby.” Dolores also
revealed Juan had provided her with cell phones so they could
remain in contact despite the no-contact orders. Dolores’s foster
parents stated Dolores was often on her cell phone and believed,
based Dolores’s comments to them, she and Juan had been in
frequent contact despite their voluntary family maintenance
services agreement and the criminal court’s no-contact order.
      In September 2021 Dolores’s foster mother reported that
Dolores had become extremely depressed. Dolores feared Juan
could be deported and told her foster mother she wanted to run
away with him. Dolores’s foster mother expressed concern about
Dolores’s mental health and believed Dolores was more
interested in Juan’s welfare than Alexa’s or her own.
      Juan neither visited Alexa nor maintained contact with the
Department after he signed the voluntary family maintenance
services agreement. The Department was finally able to contact
Juan in October 2021 after Dolores provided the Department
with Juan’s updated contact information. Juan denied being in
contact with Dolores or purchasing cell phones to facilitate such
contact.
      By the time of the detention hearing, Dolores had received
emergency mental health treatment, including medication for her

                                4
depression, and was feeling more stable. The court detained
Alexa from Juan and released her to Dolores’s custody under the
supervision of the Department with a court-ordered safety plan
that included no contact with Juan pending the jurisdiction
hearing.
       2. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
       According to the Department’s jurisdiction/disposition
report, Dolores told the Department’s social worker in November
2021 that, when she and Juan first met, she did not tell him her
age and he did not ask. Later she lied to him and told him she
was 16 years old. Juan told her to keep their relationship secret
because he was an adult, she was a child, and he could go to
prison. When Juan was arrested, he threatened Dolores, telling
her that “when he got out [of jail] he would come and kill my
family and me.” Dolores initially did not tell anyone about the
threat, but explained it was a significant reason for her fear and
depression. She had since started taking medication for
depression and was feeling better and able to care for Alexa.
Dolores did not intend to run away with Juan, who wanted
nothing to do with Alexa. She insisted she would never leave her
baby.
       When the social worker interviewed Juan in November
2021, he denied ever telling Dolores to keep their relationship
secret. He said he did not know Dolores was a minor until after
she became pregnant. Juan denied being in contact with Dolores
in violation of his agreement and criminal court no-contact orders.
He also denied purchasing cell phones for Dolores or threatening
her or her family. He acknowledged he had not remained in
contact with the Department, but said he did not understand the
voluntary family maintenance services contract he had signed.

                                 5
He had only finished first grade and did not know how to read
English, Spanish or Q’anjob’al, the dialect he and Dolores spoke.
Juan stated he was told by the social worker not to contact
Dolores and he had abided by that instruction. Juan stated he
had not met his daughter and wanted a relationship with her.
       The court sustained the allegation against Juan under
 section 300, former subdivision (b)(1), and dismissed the
 allegation relating to Dolores. The court explained, “We tried to
 work with the mother and the father voluntarily to keep the two
 away from one another and to keep this baby safe after it was
 born because of the illegal sexual contact by the father. The
 father refuses to do that and thereby puts this mother and the
 child at risk of emotional and physical abuse.”
       Proceeding immediately to disposition the court removed
 Alexa from Juan, finding by clear and convincing evidence that
 Alexa was at risk of harm in Juan’s care and “[n]o services can be
 put in place to keep the child safe with [Juan].” The court
 released Alexa to Dolores in a home-of-parent order with family
 maintenance services. The court ordered family enhancement
 services for Juan, including monitored visitation in accordance
 with the conditions of the criminal protective order. The court set
 a section 364 review hearing for May 2022, which was later
 continued to August 2022.

                                 6
       3. Post-appeal proceedings
       While the case was pending on appeal, the Department on
August 9, 2022 filed a section 342 petition and a section 387
petition. Each petition added a new allegation that Dolores had
failed to provide Alexa with basic care and supervision. The
court detained Alexa from Dolores.
       At the October 2022 jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the
section 387 petition, Dolores pleaded no contest to, and the court
sustained, the failure-to-protect allegation and released Alexa to
Dolores’s care with a home-of-parent order. The court dismissed
                                             3
the section 342 petition without prejudice.
                             DISCUSSION
       1. Juan’s Jurisdiction Challenge Is Moot
       “A court is tasked with the duty to decide actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and
not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,
or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
matter in issue in the case before it. A case becomes moot when
events render it impossible for a court, if it should decide the case
in favor of plaintiff, to grant him any effective relief. For relief to
be effective, two requirements must be met. First, the plaintiff
must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm must be
redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the
plaintiff seeks.” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 (D.P.)
[cleaned up].)
       Juan contends the court’s jurisdiction finding is not
supported by any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that

3
      On April 19, 2023 we granted the Department’s request for
judicial notice of the juvenile court’s October 12, 2022 minute
order and the sustained section 387 petition.

                                   7
his sexual abuse of Dolores, which he concedes occurred, posed
any danger to Alexa. However, even if we were to agree with
Juan and reverse the jurisdiction finding as to him, jurisdiction
over Alexa would continue based on the juvenile court’s sustained
supplemental section 387 petition concerning Dolores. (See In re
Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308 [“the minor is a
dependent if the actions of either parent bring [the minor] within
one of the statutory definitions of a dependent”]; In re I.A. (2011)
201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Accordingly, we cannot grant Juan
any effective relief. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283 [where
“jurisdictional findings have been made as to both parents but
only one parent brings a challenge, the appeal may be rendered
           4
moot”].)
      2. The Court’s Disposition Order Removing Alexa from
         Juan’s Custody Is Supported By Substantial Evidence
      The paramount purpose of the dependency laws “is to
provide maximum safety and protection for children who are
currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being
neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection,
and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk
of that harm.” (§ 300.2, subd. (a); see In re Cole L. (2021)

4
       Juan does not identify, nor can we conceive of, any basis
warranting discretionary review of the court’s now-moot
jurisdiction finding, given the undisputed nature of Juan’s sexual
misconduct. (See D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 285-287 [court
may consider on a case-by-case basis whether it is appropriate to
exercise discretionary review despite mootness of issue, keeping
in mind the overarching goal of providing maximum protection
for children with a focus on preserving the family whenever
possible].)

                                 8
70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283,
289.)
       After a dependency petition has been sustained pursuant to
section 300, the court may order a child removed from the
physical custody of a parent based on its finding, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the child would be at substantial risk of
physical or emotional harm if the parent were to live with the
child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can
be protected without removal. (§ 361, subds. (c)(1) [parent with
whom the child resided at the time the petition was initiated],
(d) [parent with whom the child did not reside at the time the
petition was initiated]; In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126,
135; see In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 347.) “The
parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been
actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the
statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re D.B. (2018)
26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328; accord, In re T.V., at pp. 135-136; In re
T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)
       Because an order for removal under section 361,
subdivisions (c) and (d), must be based on clear and convincing
evidence, we “must determine whether the record, viewed as a
whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable
trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability
demanded by this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B.
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005; see In re Nathan E. (2021)
61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123 [“[i]n reviewing for substantial evidence
to support a dispositional order removing a child, we ‘keep[ ] in
mind that the [juvenile] court was required to make its order
based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence’”];
see generally In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [“‘In reviewing

                                 9
a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if
substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports
them. “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable
inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of
the dependency court; we review the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues
of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.”
[Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise
independent judgment, but merely determine if there are
sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court”’”].)
       The “appellant has the burden to demonstrate there is no
evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the
findings or orders.” (In re D.B., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 328-329.)
       Without disputing his sexual abuse of Dolores when she
was 13 years old and he was 24 years old, Juan contends that
evidence, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate Alexa was
at risk of harm in his custody. Whether or not that is correct, the
record before the juvenile court contained far more evidence of
the risk of harm to Alexa. Dolores told the Department Juan had
threatened to kill her and her family for exposing his abuse and
sending him to jail. Juan also repeatedly flouted court orders
prohibiting him from being in contact with Dolores,
demonstrating a no-contact order was insufficient to protect
Alexa or Dolores while Alexa was in her custody. Given Juan’s
threats and disregard of court orders, there was ample evidence
to support the court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence
that removal of Alexa from Juan’s custody was necessary and
there were no other reasonable means to ensure Alexa’s safety.

                                10
                         DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s November 18, 2021 disposition order is
affirmed.

                                    PERLUSS, P. J.

     We concur:

           SEGAL, J.

           FEUER, J.

                               11