Court Opinion

ID: 9906383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 21:02:25.95841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:18.986771
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/1/23 In re Larry C. CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re LARRY C. et al.,                                         B324556
Persons Coming Under the                                       (Los Angeles County
Juvenile Court Law.                                            Super. Ct. No.
                                                               21LJJP00363A-C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

T.C.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Susan Ser, Judge. Affirmed.
      Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               ______________________________

      Defendant and appellant T.C. (mother) appeals from the
juvenile court’s findings and orders establishing dependency
jurisdiction over her children Larry C. (Larry, born 2006),
Laraya C. (Laraya, born 2009), and Laraina C. (Laraina, born
2011)1 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.2
We affirm.
                          BACKGROUND
I. Referral and Initial Investigation
      On July 11, 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral from
the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) following
the death of one-year-old T.B. Although he was not related to
mother or minors, T.B. had been left in mother’s care and died in
her home.3

1    We refer to Larry, Laraya, and Laraina, collectively, as
minors.
2     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
3     T.B.’s mother told a DCFS social worker that minors’
mother was a “lifelong friend” of hers. T.B.’s mother had left T.B.
and his older sibling in minors’ mother’s care about two months
earlier because she was homeless and did not want her children

                                 2
       DCFS’s subsequent investigation following the referral
involved four extended families because numerous children, in
addition to minors and T.B., were living in mother’s home at the
time of T.B.’s death. The following subsections summarize
pertinent facts disclosed during interviews conducted by either a
DCFS social worker or LASD detectives.
       A. Mother
       Mother reported that, on July 10, 2021, she took the
numerous children in her care to a water park. They returned to
the family home at around 7:00 p.m. Mother and Laraya then
left for a local skate park to sell food. Mother returned home at
around 10:00 p.m., but Laraya spent the night with her “boss”
because she was going to work again the next day.
       Mother left the home again and did not return until about
3:00 a.m. the next morning, leaving the children in the care of
adults J.P. and Alicia R. (Alicia). Upon her return, mother “went
straight to her room and went to sleep” without checking on any
of the children. Mother initially would not disclose her
whereabouts during the night and “simply stated, ‘I’m grown.’”
She “eventually reported that she had been out drinking.”
       At around 10:00 a.m. on July 11, 2021, Laraina came into
mother’s room and told her that something was wrong with T.B.
Mother asked Laraina to bring T.B. to her. When mother
grabbed T.B. from Laraina, he was limp and unresponsive.
Mother called 911, and Alicia tried to perform CPR. According to
mother, Laraina initially reported that she had seen another
child’s legs on top of T.B. but later said that she was not sure.

“bouncing around with her.” T.B. did not have a permanent
sleeping arrangement in the home and “would sleep with
whoever he wanted to sleep with.”

                                3
       Mother disclosed that she drank a “‘personal bottle’ ($20) of
Hennessy” and three tall cans of Bud Light on a daily basis.
Mother asked to leave the hospital during her interview with the
DCFS social worker because she needed to buy an alcoholic
beverage. Mother denied using drugs, but admitted that she
allowed J.P. and Alicia to smoke marijuana in mother’s bedroom
as long as the door was closed. J.P. and Alicia smoked marijuana
twice a day and also smoked outside of the home.
       B. Alicia
       Alicia was one of the adults who mother had reported was
caring for the children while mother was out drinking on the
night of July 10, 2021, into the early morning hours of July 11,
2021. Alicia, however, reported that she had left the home at
around 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. and did not return until about 2:00 to
2:30 a.m. Upon her return, she slept on the couch with a child
and reported seeing several children sleeping on the floor.
       On the morning of July 11, 2021, Laraina told mother,
Alicia, and J.P. that she needed to tell them something. Laraina
went on to state that another child had her legs on T.B. and that
T.B. “was breathing.” Laraina brought a limp T.B. to mother.
Alicia said they called 911 and, per instructions, she attempted to
perform CPR. T.B. did not respond.
       C. Larry
       Fifteen-year-old Larry said that he and the other children
watched a movie the previous night, ate popcorn, and went to
sleep. He recalled that J.P., who was ill and throwing up all
night, put T.B. to sleep on two separate occasions. T.B. was
finally put to bed in one of the rear bedrooms where several
children slept. J.P. was the only adult in the home. Larry went
to sleep on the living room couch.

                                 4
      Regarding mother’s drinking, Larry stated, “‘When she’s
drunk, she has someone take up to practice.’” He explained that
mother used to “‘drink back to back to back, but not anymore’”
and that she currently drank about two times per week.
      The social worker noted that it appeared Larry had some
developmental delays and exhibited behaviors much younger
than his chronological age. He had several bug bites on his arms
and legs. He emitted a foul body odor, and it appeared that it
had been several days since his last shower. He wore extremely
soiled clothing.
      D. Laraina
      Ten-year-old Laraina said she, T.B., and three other
children were sleeping on two mattresses pushed together.
Laraina initially said that when she woke up, she saw that T.B.
was on the lower end of the bed, close to her and another child’s
feet. She reported—but later denied—that she saw someone’s
feet wrapped around T.B.
      Mother told Laraina to wake T.B. up and get him ready for
the day. When she went to wake him, she saw that T.B. was not
breathing. Laraina got scared and went into the bathroom to cry
because she did not know what to do. She stayed in the
bathroom “for a while” and then told mother that T.B. was not
breathing. Mother instructed Laraina to bring T.B. to her.
Laraina complied and felt that T.B.’s body was limp.
      Laraina was visibly upset and crying during the interview.
She stated that she did not want mother to go to jail. Although
she eventually stopped crying, Laraina resumed crying when
asked about mother’s alcohol use. She stated that she did not
want to be taken from mother. She admitted that mother drank
alcohol but not when Laraina and her siblings were around.

                                5
According to Laraina, mother was sad because her girlfriend had
been killed.
       The social worker noted that Laraina could have a slight
developmental delay and, at times, displayed behaviors younger
than her chronological age. Laraina had several bug bites on her
body, emitted a foul body odor, and appeared to have not
showered for several days. Her clothes were soiled.
       E. Laraya
       Eleven-year-old Laraya stated that she had spent the night
at “‘the hot dog lady’s’ house” and was not home when T.B. was
found not breathing. Laraya began crying when asked about
mother’s alcohol use, stating that they would be taken from
mother. She disclosed that mother drank every day, usually in
the home while the children were in their rooms. She also
reported that “the adults smoke ‘weed’ in the room while the
children are in the living room or vice versa.”
       The social worker noted that Laraya also appeared to have
a slight developmental delay, displaying behaviors younger than
her chronological age and having several tantrums during her
interview. Of the three minors, Laraya was the only one who did
not have a foul body odor and was wearing clean and appropriate
clothing.
       F. Coroner investigator
       Although T.B.’s autopsy was pending, the coroner
investigator stated that it was “believed by all parties that the
child might have been smothered by the other children that were
co-sleeping in the bed with him.”
II. Dependency Petition
       On July 13, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition
seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction over minors

                                6
pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect).
Count b-1 alleged that mother was “a current abuser of
marijuana and a daily current abuser of alcohol[,]” which
rendered her incapable of providing minors with regular care and
supervision. Count b-2 alleged that mother had placed minors
“in a detrimental and endangering home environment” by
permitting J.P. and Alicia, who mother knew were marijuana
abusers, to reside in minors’ home, provide care to minors, and
abuse marijuana in minors’ home and in minors’ presence.
III. Detention
       The detention hearing took place on July 16 and 19, 2021.
The juvenile court found that a prima facie showing had been
made that minors were persons described by section 300 and
detained them from parental custody.4 Minors were placed in
shelter care under DCFS supervision.
IV. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report (August 2021)
       DCFS reported that mother was enrolled in an outpatient
program, where she participated in parenting education and
individual counseling and attended AA meetings. When a
dependency investigator visited mother’s home, she did not
observe any proper sleeping arrangements for minors. Each
minor appeared to have developmental delays. Each had been
diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed psychotropic
medication. Laraya had been hospitalized in a psychiatric
hospital during the reporting period. Mother had daily
telephonic communication with minors and monitored visitation
once per week.

4    The whereabouts of minors’ father were unknown
throughout these proceedings. He is not a party to this appeal.

                                7
       When interviewed on August 6, 2021, mother stated that
she used to drink often but had stopped. She denied smoking.
She was enrolled in an outpatient program, which she thought
she needed and was learning a lot from. When she craved
alcohol, she went to bingo. Mother attributed her drinking to her
brother murdering her girlfriend.
       Regarding J.P. and Alicia’s marijuana use, mother stated,
“‘I did let them both smoke outside the house; however, no one is
no longer able to smoke in my house. I should’ve been here on
the day of the incident and making sure no one was smoking
marijuana in my house. I’m learning in the outpatient program
that there should be at least one sober parent in the house.’”
V. Last Minute Information for the Court
       In early September 2021, DCFS reported that mother had
enrolled in an intensive outpatient substance abuse program on
July 20, 2021, and had a projected completion date of January 19,
2022. Mother drug tested negative six times from July 15, 2021,
through September 2, 2021. Her July 13, 2021, drug test leaked
in transit. An August 18, 2021, test returned positive for alcohol
at 0.10 percent. Mother attributed the positive alcohol test to
drinking Nyquil. The social worker contacted the laboratory and
was told that Nyquil could cause a positive result.
VI. Adjudication Hearing
       After entertaining oral argument on September 10, 2021,
the juvenile court sustained count b-1, as amended by
interlineation to strike references to marijuana abuse, and count
b-2 as pled.
       The juvenile court commended mother for getting
treatment and noted that it “appear[ed] that mother [was] being
very honest with herself about the issues.” As to count b-1, the

                                8
court stated: “Mother admitted that . . . she does have an alcohol
issue, which she is addressing. And the children state that they
have seen mother daily consume alcohol. You know, there are
many parents who do drink alcohol, but my belief is that daily
consumption of alcohol . . . does affect decisionmaking, which
[a]ffects the safety of the children. [¶] And in looking at the
prior history, and the decision of the mother to leave the children
that one night which led to the incident of the death of the
nonrelated child, I believe there is a current risk to the children
connected to mother’s alcohol use.”
       The juvenile court declared minors dependents of the court
and removed them from mother’s custody. The court ordered
DCFS to provide mother with family reunification services.
Mother was granted unmonitored telephone and video visits and
monitored in-person visits with DCFS having the discretion to
liberalize.
VII. Appeal
       Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the
September 10, 2021, jurisdictional findings and dispositional
orders.

                                 9
VIII. Subsequent Events5
      On March 10, 2022, the juvenile court terminated its
suitable placement order and ordered minors returned to
mother’s home with DCFS providing family maintenance
services.
                         DISCUSSION
      On appeal, mother contends that insufficient evidence
supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings.6

5      On June 30, 2023, DCFS filed a motion requesting that we
take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s March 10, 2023, minute
orders regarding minors. We hereby grant the unopposed
motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a); In re
M.F. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 86, 110 [“While appellate courts
rarely consider postjudgment evidence or evidence developed
after the ruling challenged on appeal, such evidence is admissible
for the limited purpose of determining whether the subsequent
development has rendered an appeal partially or entirely moot”].)

6      Although mother’s notice of appeal also referred to the
dispositional orders removing minors from her custody, mother’s
appellate briefs do not challenge those orders. She has thus
forfeited any claim of error regarding the removal orders. (See
Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99 [“Issues do
not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by
argument or citation to authority, we consider the issues
waived”].) In any event, the subsequent return of minors to
mother rendered moot an appellate challenge to the removal
orders because we can longer provide her with any effective relief.
(See In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 60 [“the 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”].)

                                10
I. Relevant Law
       Under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the juvenile court has
jurisdiction over and may adjudge to be a dependent of the court
a “child [who] has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the
child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of”—
as relevant here—“[t]he failure or inability of the child’s
parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child” (§ 300,
subd. (b)(1)(A)) or “[t]he inability of the parent . . . to provide
regular care for the child due to the parent’s . . . substance abuse”
(§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(D)).
       “While evidence of past conduct may be probative of current
conditions, the question under section 300 is whether
circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the child to the
defined risk of harm.” (In re Emily L. (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 1,
15.) Still, “section 300 does not require that a child actually be
abused or neglected before the juvenile court can assume
jurisdiction. The subdivision[] at issue here require[s] only a
‘substantial risk’ that the child will be abused or neglected. . . .
[Citation.] ‘The court need not wait until a child is seriously
abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps
necessary to protect the child.’ [Citation.]” (In re I.J. (2013)
56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
II. Standard of Review
       Jurisdictional findings must be made by a preponderance of
the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248.) We review those findings for
substantial evidence—“evidence that is reasonable, credible and
of solid value. [Citations.] We do not evaluate the credibility of
witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or
determine the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all

                                 11
reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record
favorably to the juvenile court’s order and affirm the order even if
there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding.” (In re R.V.
(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)
III. Analysis
      Substantial evidence supports the count b-1 jurisdictional
finding that mother’s alcohol abuse interfered with her ability to
provide regular care for minors, thus creating a substantial risk
that minors would suffer serious physical harm.7 (§ 300,
subd. (b)(1).)
      When she was interviewed following T.B.’s death, mother
admitted that she drank a “‘personal bottle’ ($20) of Hennessy”
and three tall cans of Bud Light every day. She was unable to get
through her interview with a DCFS social worker because she
could not control her compulsion to purchase more alcohol to
consume. She drank every day even though she had several
children, in addition to minors, under her care.
      The juvenile court could infer that mother’s alcohol abuse
had deleterious effects on minors, as there were numerous
examples of her neglect. Two of the three minors emitted a foul

7     Because the sustained count b-1 allegations against mother
bring minors within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1), we do not address whether
substantial evidence also supports the count b-2 allegations
regarding marijuana abuse by J.P. and Alicia. (See In re D.P.
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 284 [“where there are multiple findings
against one parent; the validity of one finding may render moot
the parent’s attempt to challenge the others”]; In re Ashley B.
(2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979 [“As long as there is one
unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another
might be inappropriate”].)

                                12
odor, wore soiled clothing, and lacked proper hygiene. On the
night of T.B.’s death, mother went out to drink, leaving minors
and the other children under her care with adults who regularly
used marijuana in the home. One of the adults, Alicia, also left
the home and did not return until after the children were asleep.
The other adult, J.P., was vomiting all night. Upon her return
home, mother failed to check on any of the children. Mother’s
neglect led to Laraya sharing an unsafe sleeping environment
with T.B. and enduring the trauma of discovering him not
breathing.
      Commendably, mother acknowledged her drinking problem
and sought treatment following T.B.’s death. But the
adjudication hearing took place only two months later. Contrary
to mother’s arguments on appeal, the juvenile court could
reasonably conclude that her recent efforts at sobriety did not
ameliorate the continued substantial risk of harm to minors.
(See In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 423–424
[200 days of sobriety insufficient to reassure the juvenile court
that a relapse would not occur]; In re Kimberly F. (1997)
56 Cal.App.4th 519, 531, fn. 9 [“It is the nature of addiction that
one must be ‘clean’ for a much longer period than 120 days to
show real reform”].) The court was not required to believe
mother’s claim that the August 18, 2021, test that returned
positive for alcohol was caused by taking Nyquil and, instead,
could infer that mother had consumed alcoholic beverages. (See
Gross v. Needham (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 446, 460 [in applying
the substantial evidence standard of review, an appellate court
“must also assume in favor of the determination below the
existence of every fact which the trier of facts could have
reasonably deduced from the evidence”].)

                                13
        Mother cites In re Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178,
185 (Natalie A.), for the proposition that “[t]o warrant juvenile
court jurisdiction . . . [a parent’s] level of substance abuse must
manifest as (1) recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to
fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home;
(2) recurrent use in situations in which it is physically hazardous;
(3) recurrent substance-related legal problems; and (4) continued
substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or
interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of
the substance.” (Italics added.)
        Mother misreads Natalie A., which does not hold that each
of these conditions must be satisfied before a juvenile court can
exercise dependency jurisdiction based on a parent’s substance
abuse. (See Natalie A., supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 185–186.)
Rather, in that case, the Court of Appeal found substantial
evidence that a parent was a substance abuser where the
evidence indicated the presence of “one of the most salient
manifestations of parental substance abuse”: “‘“a failure to fulfill
major role obligations at . . . home (e.g., . . . neglect of children or
household) . . . .”’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 185.) As discussed above,
evidence of that same type of neglect exists here.

                                  14
                       DISPOSITION
     The findings and orders are affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                               _____________________, Acting P. J.
                               ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

________________________, J.
CHAVEZ

________________________, J.
HOFFSTADT

                                15