Court Opinion

ID: 9405206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 19:05:42.257523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.501630
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/27/23 In re P.D. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 P.D. et al., Persons Coming                                     B316306
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                         (Los Angeles County
                                                                      Super. Ct. No.
                                                                      21LJJP00348ABCDEFG)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

REBECCA N.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from findings and an order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County. Susan Ser, Judge. Dismissed in part and
affirmed in part.
      Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Bryan Mercke, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                       _________________________

      Rebecca N. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional findings (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300)1 and
dispositional order2 regarding seven of her children. She
contends that the jurisdictional findings are not supported by
sufficient evidence.

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

2      In the conclusion section of mother’s opening brief, she
seeks reversal of the juvenile court’s dispositional orders. Mother
does not advance any claim of error regarding the dispositional
orders in the discussion portion of her brief. To the extent
mother purports to assert any substantive challenge the validity
of the dispositional order, we deem it forfeited as perfunctory,
and assume that her request is based on her hoped-for reversal of
the jurisdictional findings. (In re Athena P. (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 617, 624 [“Failure to appeal from an appealable
dispositional order waives any substantive challenge to the
jurisdictional findings”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) &
(C).)

                                  2
      We dismiss that portion of mother’s appeal concerning her
six younger children. As to the oldest of the seven children, we
affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The family
       This family consists of mother, Damian N. (father),3 and
their seven minor children: Paige D. (Jaxson, born Dec. 2006),4
Zoe N. (Zoe, born July 2008), Mia N. (Mia, born Jan. 2010),
Linus N. (Linus, born Dec. 2010), Willow N. (Willow, born Aug.
2012), Harrison N. (Harrison, born July 2016), and Xander N.
(Xander, born July 2018).5 The family lived together until
August 2020, when mother fled the home.
Referral and investigation
      In June 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral6
alleging that mother had left the family home, leaving father to
care for all of the children, some of whom have special needs.
The reporting party also stated Zoe had attempted suicide in

3     Father is not a party to this appeal.

4     Like the parties and the juvenile court, we refer to this
child as Jaxon.

5     The children also have an adult half-sibling, Kayla D.

6     This was not the family’s first referral to DCFS. There was
a referral in 2017 and three referrals in August 2020. One
referral concerned Kayla’s attempted suicide and hospitalization
caused in part by father’s alleged emotional abuse. Another
referral concerned domestic violence; this domestic violence
caused mother to leave the home.

                                 3
February 2021, and Zoe disclosed that father called her
demeaning names, such as “whore” and “slut.” The reporting
party further stated that Mia had indicated that Zoe would
probably attempt to commit suicide again based on father’s
insults.
       Interview with father
       A DCFS social worker spoke with father about the
concerns. He reported that Zoe is on new medication, and he was
working on getting her a new therapist. He denied calling Zoe
any derogatory names. Father admitted to using marijuana.
       Interview with mentor
       The social worker next spoke to a mentor for some of the
children at Antelope Valley Partnership for Health (AVPH). A
case manager with AVPH reported that Mia disclosed that father
yells at Zoe and calls her derogatory names. Mia heard Zoe tell
father “‘[y]ou make me want to kill myself.’” (Italics omitted.)
The case manager also reported that Mia had lost a lot of weight.
Father withdrew the children from the services that AVPH
provided after the report was made to DCFS.
       Interview with the children
       On June 22, 2021, the social worker spoke with the
children. Zoe told the social worker that father’s screaming gives
her “‘manic attacks,’” and that she suffers from disassociative and
bipolar disorder. While Zoe admitted to cutting herself in the
past, she denied having current suicidal or self-harming
thoughts.
       Jaxson reported that the home is extremely chaotic, partly
because Harrison, who has autism, urinates and defectes
throughout the home and father constantly yells. Jaxson really
wanted to see mother, but understood why she had left the home.

                                 4
He reported that he felt very stressed and overwhelmed in the
home.
       Willow and Linus confirmed that father frequently yells;
Linus felt unsafe and scared.
       Mia also reported that father yelled, making her feel scared
and unsafe. She reported that she may not have eaten anything
the day before, and she doubted that father noticed. She had lost
a lot of weight. She could not sleep; she lost her appetite; and she
felt sad. She also stated that father smoked marijuana multiple
times per day and cultivated it in the garage.
       Interview with mother
       On June 30, 2021, a DCFS social worker interviewed
mother.7 Mother was concerned about the children, however she
believed that she could not do anything about it. Mother was
aware of father’s marijuana use, and believed marijuana made
father unstable. She stated that it was no longer safe for her to
be in the home, reporting that father is “‘verbally abusive.’”
According to mother, father threatened to shoot her and her then
unborn child.
       Mother said that her home was not large enough for the
children to move in with her. She claimed that she had tried to
find a shelter for her and the children but was unable to locate
one.
       Regarding the children, mother stated that Jaxson has
anxiety, and she was aware of Zoe’s self-harming behavior,

7     About one week earlier, mother had given birth to an infant
not part of this case. It seems that between the time mother
moved out of the family home and June 2021, mother had entered
into a new relationship with another man.

                                 5
health issues, nightmares, instability, and need of proper
medication. She was aware that Linus was frequently blamed for
things and had a lot of pressure on him in the home. Mia is on
the autism spectrum, and mother was aware of Mia’s weight loss
issues.
Section 300 petition
      On July 6, 2021, DCFS filed a section 300 petition under
subdivisions (b)(1), (c), and (j) on behalf of the children, alleging
medical neglect and emotional abuse by both parents of Zoe and
Mia, placing all seven children at risk of serious physical harm.
Detention hearing
      At the July 16, 2021, detention hearing, the juvenile court
ordered Jaxson to remain in his parents’ care (in father’s home)
under DCFS supervision. Zoe, Mia, Linus, Willow, Harrison, and
Xander were detained from the parents and placed in shelter
care.
First amended petition
      A first amended petition was filed August 23, 2021, adding
new allegations under subdivisions (a) and (b) regarding the
parents’ domestic violence, father’s marijuana abuse and
cultivation, and mother’s failure to protect.
Investigative reports
      A dependency investigator prepared seven reports for the
jurisdiction/disposition hearing.
      Zoe
      Zoe stated that father made her read the detention report
out loud, told her the case was her fault, and that she would be
raped in foster care. She also reported that father would scream
and threaten mother. Zoe felt scared when mother and father

                                  6
fought as father would throw things and threatened to kill
mother and her unborn child.
      Zoe’s mental health had deteriorated as well, as she
reported overdosing on sleeping pills and cutting herself as a
result of father’s behavior. Zoe also reported that Kayla also had
attempted suicide because of father’s behavior. In September
2021, Zoe took several prescription medication pills, cut herself
with a razor, and was transported to the hospital. Zoe was then
moved to the foster home where Harrison and Xander had been
placed.
      Mia
      Mia also disclosed concerns about living with father. She
reported that father threatened to tie Linus to a chair in the
summer and only give him a wet towel to drink. Mia barely slept
and barely ate while living with father as father did not prepare
meals and the children had to cook for themselves. Mia also felt
overwhelmed and scared because of father’s screaming. She
admitted that she had snuck knives into her room and
contemplated hurting herself due to the environment in father’s
home.
      Linus
      Linus did not feel safe with father because of his anger
issues. Father called Linus ungrateful and cursed at him. While
Linus denied being physically hit by father, father did threaten
him and on one occasion intentionally stepped on his hand. On
one occasion, father threatened to tie him to a tree and only give
him a wet rag to drink.
      Linus also reported that Zoe and Kayla tried to commit
suicide because of father’s screaming.

                                7
      Willow
      Willow confirmed that father had threatened mother. His
frequent yelling made Willow cry. According to Willow, Zoe cut
herself and went to the hospital because of father’s actions.
      Jaxson
      Jaxson reported that father’s outbursts were caused by the
stress of caring for so many children. Zoe had told Jaxson about
her self-harming behaviors, and when Jaxson told his parents
about it, they told Zoe to speak to her therapist.
      Kayla
      Kayla and Jaxson primarily made dinner for the other
children. Almost every day, she would find Harrison and Xander
naked, cold, or thirsty. Kayla and her siblings would care for
Harrison and Xander and put them to bed, as father did not help
with that task. Kayla struggled to put Harrison and Xander to
bed as the young children wanted to see father, but father was
often busy tending to his marijuana plants instead.
      Father
      Father stated that Zoe sees a doctor, takes medication, and
gave no indication of mental health issues before her suicide
attempt in February 2021. Father denied calling Zoe derogatory
names, and stated he curses at the children’s behavior, not at
them. Father denied screaming at any of the children or calling
them names. Father did not believe Mia was underweight, and
while he acknowledged the children at times cook for themselves,
he stated he also cooks for them.
      Mother
      Mother stated that she has a long history of domestic
violence with father. He called mother demeaning names and
threatened her.

                                8
        When Zoe started having mental health issues, mother was
not in the home, and she called father to try to get Zoe into
counseling. Mother claimed that after Zoe tried to kill herself, all
father had to do was follow through on Zoe’s medication. Zoe
would call mother when she was feeling distressed, and during
the calls mother heard father screaming at Zoe in the
background.
        Mother claimed that she visited the children when father
was not around. Mother stated that she tried to talk to the
children daily to ensure their needs were met, and would buy
food for them when needed.
        Mother denied that Mia had lost weight, and stated she
had always been a picky eater. She acknowledged that Mia’s
current mental health issues were related to father’s treatment of
Mia. Mia told mother about father screaming at her, and mother
heard father’s screaming on the phone with Mia as well.
        Prior to the jurisdictional and disposition hearing, mother
had enrolled in a parenting course and a domestic violence
course, and she started having unmonitored visits with the
children. She was working on getting a home with enough space
for all of the children.
        Mother shared a video that she claimed that Kayla had
sent her. In the video, Linus stated to the camera, “‘my dad
. . . threatened to break all my teeth.’” In the same video, Mia
stated father threatened to stab and cut both Linus and herself.
        Father’s marijuana use
        Zoe, Mia, Linus, Willow, Jaxson, and mother all reported
that father uses marijuana and grows it in the home. Zoe stated
that one time, Harrison gained access to the marijuana in
father’s room and almost ate some. She also said he smokes

                                 9
before driving the children. On one occasion, father gave Zoe a
marijuana edible, and mother was aware of this and disapproved.
Zoe disclosed that Jaxson tried marijuana as well.
      Mia relayed that Harrison and Xander got into the
marijuana on one occasion. According to Willow, these boys got
into a poison kept in the hallway that is used to grow marijuana.
      Father admitted to using marijuana at night, and for
medical reasons. He keeps his marijuana plants and
paraphernalia in locked areas. The dependency investigator
observed marijuana plants growing both in the garage and in the
backyard of the home during a home inspection. Father denied
using pesticides on the plants.
Jurisdiction/disposition hearing
      On October 18, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the
section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), counts regarding domestic
violence, medical neglect of Zoe and Mia, father’s marijuana
abuse and cultivation, and mother’s failure to protect.8 The
juvenile court reasoned that mother failed to protect the children
from the domestic violence because the words that were used in
front of the children had a detrimental effect on them. Moreover,
while mother ensured her safety by moving out, “she left these
children with [father], knowing all the issues they had before she
left the home,” and failed to ensure the “children’s safety.” While
the juvenile court acknowledged that mother tried to make
preparations to take the children with her, after mother left, she
decided to start “a new relationship with a new boyfriend” that

8    A second domestic violence count (§ 300, subd. (a)) and the
emotional abuse count (§ 300, subd. (c)) were dismissed.

                                10
“interfere[ed] with her ability to take her other children into her
home.”
      The children were declared dependents of the juvenile
court. Jaxson remained released to both parents, and the
younger children were detained from both parents.
Appeal
      Mother filed a timely appeal.
Postjudgment events
      While this appeal was pending, the six younger children
(Zoe, Mia, Linus, Willow, Harrison, and Xander) were returned to
mother’s custody. On September 28, 2022, the juvenile court
terminated jurisdiction with a family law order for mother to
have sole legal and physical custody of Zoe, Mia, Linus, and
Willow. On February 3 and 10, 2023, the juvenile court
terminated jurisdiction over Harrison and Xander, respectively,
with a family law order granting mother sole legal and physical
custody of those children.9
                              DISCUSSION
I. Justiciability and mootness
       DCFS argues that mother’s appeal should be dismissed as
to the six younger children because the juvenile court terminated
jurisdiction over them and granted mother sole legal and physical
custody in a family law order. We agree.
       “[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.) Here, no effective relief can be granted

9      We hereby grant respondent’s motion for judicial notice
filed February 14, 2023.

                                11
to mother. Dependency jurisdiction has been terminated, and
mother has full custody of her children. (In re D.P. (2023)
14 Cal.5th 266, 277–278.)
       Moreover, there is no need for us to exercise our discretion
to review her challenge. As noted by DCFS, mother did not
challenge the allegations against father. (In re D.P., supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 283.) And the unchallenged findings against
father were more serious than those leveled against mother. (Id.
at p. 286.) Furthermore, the jurisdictional findings regarding
mother were not “based on particularly pernicious or stigmatizing
conduct.” (Id. at pp. 285–286.) Keeping in mind “the overarching
goals of the dependency system” (id. at p. 286), we decline to
exercise our discretion here.
       This conclusion does not resolve mother’s appeal
concerning Jaxson as jurisdiction has not been terminated in his
case.10 Thus, we turn to the merits of her appeal concerning him.
In so doing, we note that our discussion infra applies equally to
mother’s argument concerning the six younger children.

10    We decline DCFS’s request to dismiss mother’s appeal as
nonjusticiable because there has been no challenge to the
sustained allegations against father. The juvenile court’s
jurisdictional findings are what make mother an offending rather
than a nonoffending parent. (See In re Drake M. (2012)
211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762–763, disapproved on other grounds in
In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 283.) Under these
circumstances, and “[b]ecause dismissal of an appeal for
mootness operates as an affirmance of the underlying judgment
or order,” we opt to address the merits of mother’s appeal in
reaching the same result. (In re D.P., supra, at p. 285.) We also
deem mother’s argument at the disposition hearing sufficient to
preserve this argument on appeal.

                                12
II. Jurisdiction
       A. Standard of review
       As the parties agree, we review the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re E.B. (2010)
184 Cal.App.4th 568, 574, overruled in part by Conservatorship of
O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) Substantial evidence is
evidence that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.
(In re Alexzander C. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 438, 446, overruled in
part by Conservatorship of O.B., supra, at p. 1010, fn. 7; In re
Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) “[W]e view the
record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s
determinations, drawing all reasonable inferences from the
evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings and orders.” (In
re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.) “We do not reweigh
the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve
evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.]” (In re Dakota H. (2005)
132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)
       As the appellant, mother must establish that the
challenged rulings are not supported by substantial evidence.
(See In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)
       B. Applicable law
       Section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A), authorizes dependency
jurisdiction over a child where “[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 . . . [¶] [t]he failure or inability of
[his or her] parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the
child.” Three elements are often cited as necessary for a
jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1):
“(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms;
(2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the

                                  13
minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” (In re
Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) “The third element
. . . effectively requires a showing that at the time of the
jurisdictional hearing the child is at substantial risk of serious
physical harm in the future (e.g., evidence showing a substantial
risk that past physical harm will reoccur). [Citations.]” (In re
Savannah M., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.)
         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.’” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) “‘The
purpose of dependency proceedings is to prevent risk, not ignore
it.’” (Jonathan L. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074,
1104.)
         “[T]he court may . . . consider past events when
determining whether a child presently needs the juvenile court’s
protection. [Citations.] A parent’s past conduct is a good
predictor of future behavior. [Citation.] ‘Facts supporting
allegations that a child is one described by section 300 are
cumulative.’ [Citation.] Thus, the court ‘must consider all the
circumstances affecting the child, wherever they occur.’
[Citation.]” (In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133.)
         Section 300, subdivision (j), authorizes dependency
jurisdiction over a child whose “sibling has been abused or
neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and
there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or
neglected, as defined in those subdivisions. The court shall
consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of
the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the
abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent

                                 14
or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative
in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.”
      C. Analysis
      Applying these legal principles, substantial evidence
supports the findings that mother medically neglected Zoe and
Mia, and failed to protect the children against father’s domestic
violence, verbal abuse, marijuana abuse, and marijuana
cultivation.
             1. Domestic violence
      Mother separated from father in April 2020, and left the
home shortly thereafter. She left because of father’s violent and
abusive behavior. In fact, she stated that it was no longer safe
for her to be in the home because father was “‘verbally abusive.’”
There was also evidence that the children had witnessed the
domestic violence.
      Despite mother’s full awareness of father’s violent
tendencies and capacity for verbal abuse, she left the children in
his custody. And, when she did so, she was admittedly (and
rightly) concerned about the children. She knew that father was
screaming and demeaning the children because she heard him
while on the phone with the children. And she had seen the video
from Kayla, in which Linus and Mia indicated that father had
threatened to physically harm them.
      Mother knew about her children’s emotional issues,
including anxiety and self-harming, results of father’s
mistreatment of them. Still, she failed to protect them by leaving
them with father.
      Prior to mother fleeing the home, mother claimed she
attempted to find a domestic violence shelter to take all of the
children, but she was unable to do so. Mother also claimed that

                               15
she had asked DCFS to remove the children from father’s home
during one of the August 2020 referrals. However, mother did
not make any other efforts to remove the children from the home,
and mother did not claim she renewed these efforts even after the
situation in the home continued to worsen. By the time of the
detention hearing in July 2021, mother was still unable to care
for the children.
      Taken together, this evidence sufficiently supports the
juvenile court’s finding that mother failed to protect her children
from father’s domestic violence and abuse, placing the children at
substantial risk of serious physical harm.
             2. Medical neglect
      Meanwhile, the children languished in father’s care as he
directed his screaming, demeaning remarks, and threats to them.
Mia and Zoe’s mental health deteriorated, placing them at a
serious risk of physical harm. In February 2021 Zoe attempted to
take her own life as a result of father’s behavior. Mia was also at
a serious risk of physical harm as she started losing weight,
snuck knives into her room, and contemplated hurting herself
due to father’s behavior.
      Mother was well aware of Zoe and Mia’s mental health
issues and the resulting serious risk to their physical health.
Despite this knowledge, mother medically neglected them and
their need for mental health services.
             3. Marijuana
      As mother knew, father frequently used marijuana in the
home and cultivated marijuana on the premises. Mother knew or
reasonably should have known that father’s daily marijuana
abuse would impact his ability to safely raise seven children,
some with special needs and of tender years, and mother failed to

                                16
protect the children from this risk. “Exercise of dependency
jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), is proper when a
child is ‘of such tender years that the absence of adequate
supervision and care poses an inherent risk to [his or her]
physical health and safety.’ [Citation.]” (In re Christopher R.
(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216.)
       Similarly, mother was aware that there was abundant
marijuana in the home and knew or should have known that it
created a detrimental condition for the children. In fact, father
had given Zoe a marijuana edible and Jaxson had used
marijuana. Further, Harrison and Xander had interacted with
the marijuana plants and had gotten into the fertilizer, further
evidence of mother’s failure to protect. (See In re Cole Y. (2015)
233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1453–1454.)
              4. These risks were not speculative
       Urging us to reverse, mother argues that the risk from her
action (or inaction) was “speculation” rather than real. However,
the juvenile court heard mother’s arguments about her
helplessness, and substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s rejection of that argument. The juvenile court noted that
mother fled the home for her own safety, but did not consider the
safety of the children. Rather, mother “started a new
relationship with a new boyfriend[, which interfered] with her
ability to take her other children into her home.”
       The juvenile court’s finding is supported by mother’s
history of domestic violence with father that drove her from the
home, her contact with the children where she could overhear
father verbally abusing the children, her awareness of Zoe and
Mia’s untreated mental health needs, and her awareness of
father’s marijuana abuse and cultivation while trying to care for

                                17
seven children—several of which have special needs and are very
young.
      As set forth above, “‘[t]he purpose of dependency
proceedings is to prevent risk, not ignore it.’ [Citation.]”
(Jonathan L. v. Superior Court, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1104.) Thus, there was no reason for the juvenile court “to
hold its protective power in abeyance until harm to [the children
was] not only threatened but actual.” (In re Eric B. (1987) 189
Cal.App.3d 996, 1004.)
                          DISPOSITION
      Mother’s appeal concerning Zoe, Mia, Linus, Willow,
Harrison, and Xander is dismissed. The juvenile court’s
jurisdictional findings and dispositional order concerning Jaxson
are affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                                     _____________________, J.
                                     ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

_________________________, P. J.
LUI

_________________________, J.
CHAVEZ

                                18