Court Opinion

ID: 9950803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:03:04.281511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:47.444730
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/14/24 In re Journee E. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JOURNEE E., a Person                                  B328354
Coming Under the Juvenile                                   (Los Angeles County Super.
Court Law.                                                  Ct. No. 22CCJP02252B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

ANDRIA E.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Pete R. Navarro, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
      Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                  __________________________

       Andria E. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders
at the six-month review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e).1 At the hearing,
the court found substantial risk of detriment to four-year-old
Journee E. if she were returned to Mother’s physical custody, and
the court continued Mother’s family reunification services for
another six months. The court also ordered an evaluation of a
maternal great-aunt who lived in Texas for possible adoption of
Journee. On appeal, Mother contends the juvenile court abused
its discretion in failing at the six-month review hearing to
appoint the maternal great-grandmother, with whom Journee
was placed, as Journee’s legal guardian and to terminate
jurisdiction. Because Mother did not request a legal
guardianship for Journee, she forfeited the issue. We affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.    The Investigation and Dependency Petition
      On June 6, 2022 the Department received a referral after
Mother went to urgent care and disclosed she had active thoughts
about stabbing herself, hitting pedestrians and other vehicles
with her car, and drowning Journee and Journee’s half sister,

1    Further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                 2
then six-year-old Nyla E.2 Mother was placed on a psychiatric
hold and admitted to a mental health facility, then became
verbally and physically aggressive toward staff. Mother left the
facility after repeatedly kicking and ramming the locked double
doors, which eventually opened.
       On June 10, 2022 the Department filed a petition under
section 300, former subdivision (b)(1), alleging Mother “ha[d] a
history of mental and emotional problems including suicidal and
homicidal ideation, auditory hallucinations, delusional thinking,
and aggressive behaviors” that rendered her incapable of
providing regular care of Journee and Nyla. The children were
removed from Mother and placed with their maternal great-
grandmother, Jennice W.

B.    The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearings
      At the August 3, 2022 jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile
court sustained the amended allegations under section 300,
former subdivision (b)(1), that Mother’s mental and emotional
problems rendered her incapable of providing regular care for
Journee. At the Department’s request, the court continued the
disposition hearing to September 20 for compliance with the
Indian and Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; IWCA)
and related California law.

2     Mother’s appeal only involves Journee. The juvenile court
found that Jeremy R. was Journee’s alleged father and the
Department had made due diligent efforts to contact him, but his
whereabouts were unknown. Jeremy is not a party to this
appeal.

                                3
       At the September 20, 2022 disposition hearing, the juvenile
court declared Journee a dependent of the court and removed her
from Mother’s physical custody. The court ordered Mother to
submit to weekly random and on-demand drug and alcohol
testing, a psychological assessment, and a psychiatric evaluation.
The court also ordered Mother to participate in mental health
counseling and individual counseling and to take all prescribed
psychotropic medication. The court granted Mother monitored
visits with Journee for a minimum of two times per week for two
hours each visit.
       On September 28, 2022 Mother timely appealed from the
disposition order. Mother contended the Department and the
juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice
requirements of ICWA and related California law because the
Department failed to interview the maternal grandmother and
two maternal great-aunts. We dismissed the appeal as moot
because the Department interviewed the maternal relatives
while the appeal was pending. (In re Journee E. (Sept. 25, 2023,
B323959) [nonpub. opn.].)

C.    The Six-month Status Review Report
      According to the March 10, 2023 six-month status review
report, Journee was doing well and thriving in Jennice’s home.
Journee appeared advanced for her age and had many friends in
preschool. She had weekly video visits with her half sister Nyla,
who resided in Texas. Jennice reported that Journee missed
Nyla very much.
      Mother visited Journee daily at Jennice’s home for two
hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon. The visits
were monitored by Jennice. Mother helped get Journee dressed

                                4
and bathed her. Mother also helped Journee with her homework.
Journee stated she loved Mother and liked seeing her. The social
worker observed that Mother “love[d] Journee very much” and
“appear[ed] to have a close relationship with Journee.” At a
November 30, 2022 child family team meeting, Mother stated her
goal was to close the dependency case and have her children live
with her.
      According to the status review report, Mother was not in
compliance with her case plan. Mother denied having a history of
mental health issues, and she stated the results of her
psychological evaluation were “not true.” The psychologist
reported that Mother struggled with “‘mental [b]reakdowns,’”
lacked insight, and was defensive. But the psychologist opined
that Mother likely could manage her mental health problems
with proper treatment. However, Mother refused to participate
in individual counseling or take any prescribed psychotropic
medication. Further, Mother did not provide proof she complied
with the court order to participate in a psychiatric evaluation.
Mother missed all weekly drug tests from September 23, 2022 to
February 2, 2023. Mother denied any drug use, and she refused
to submit to drug testing by the Department. The social worker,
Jennice, and extended family members tried to help Mother to
obtain services, but Mother was defensive and refused assistance.
      In December 2022 Jennice expressed an interest in
becoming Journee’s legal guardian. But Jennice later informed
the social worker that her sister, maternal great-aunt Brenda T.,
wanted to adopt Journee. On March 7, 2023 the social worker
spoke with Brenda, who confirmed her interest in adopting
Journee. Brenda lived in Texas near Nyla. Brenda indicated
Journee would visit Nyla often if Brenda adopted Journee.

                               5
Brenda added that Jennice frequently visited her in Texas
because they were “a very close family.” The social worker
requested that the juvenile court issue an Interstate Compact on
the Placement of Children (ICPC) order to assess Brenda for
possible adoptive placement in the event reunification with
Mother failed.3

D.     The Six-month Review Hearing
       At the March 20, 2023 six-month review hearing (§ 366.21,
subd. (e)), Mother’s attorney reported that Mother did not think
she had any current problems that needed to be addressed.
Mother’s attorney stated, “[B]ased on my conversation with her,
she is obviously asking that the order be a home of mother order
today, that both kids go home to her, and that the case close.”
Minor’s counsel argued Mother’s denial “raise[d] serious concern”
given Mother’s prior involuntary hospitalization for suicidal
ideation, her prior aggressive behavior, and her failure to address
her mental health issues. Minor’s counsel agreed with the
Department’s request that the court continue Mother’s family
reunification services and issue an ICPC order to assess Brenda
for possible adoption of Journee. Mother requested the court
terminate jurisdiction because there was no evidence of child
abuse, and “prolonging this [case] on the basis of mental health

3      “The ICPC is a compact among California and other states,
the purpose of which is ‘“to facilitate the cooperation between
states in the placement and monitoring of dependent children.”’”
(In re Suhey G. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 732, 742; accord, In re
Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 51, 66.)

                                 6
when that has nothing at all to do with abuse” was not within the
court’s jurisdiction.
      After hearing from Mother and the attorneys, the court
found by clear and convincing evidence that returning Journee to
Mother’s physical custody would create a substantial risk of
detriment to the child. The court stated, “Mother has been
wholly non-compliant in the case plan. She denies that there is
even a basis for jurisdiction.” But the court continued Mother’s
family reunifications services, finding “that should Mother
receive the mental health treatment she needs, [Journee] may be
returned to her by the permanency hearing.” The court issued an
ICPC order to assess Brenda and set a 12-month review hearing
(§ 366.21, subd. (f)) for September 18, 2023.
      Mother timely appealed.

                          DISCUSSION

A.     The ICPC Order Was Appropriate
       Mother argues legal guardianship was in Journee’s best
interest instead of an ICPC order with a plan of adoption by
Brenda, who lives in Texas. But at the six-month review hearing,
the juvenile court ordered only an ICPC evaluation of Brenda, not
placement or adoption. (See In re A.J. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th
525, 541 [“The ICPC governs the interstate placement of
children, and generally requires that no child may be sent to
another state for placement ‘in foster care or as a preliminary to a
possible adoption’ unless the sending agency has first complied
with the law’s requirements.”]; In re Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th
51, 66 [“‘The ICPC governs conditions for out-of-state “placement
in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption.”’”].) The

                                 7
court could not order adoption or placement of Journee with
Brenda in Texas until the ICPC evaluation was completed. (In re
Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 462 [“ICPC procedures
must be completed before a member state can order a child sent
into another state for placement. . . . If a state sends a child into
a home for placement prior to completion of ICPC procedures, the
‘sending’ is equivalent to a conditional or contingent placement
barred by the ICPC.”]; In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670,
682 [“The ICPC prohibits sending a minor into the receiving state
‘until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state
shall notify the sending agency, in writing, to the effect that the
proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the
interests of the child.’”].)

B.     Legal Guardianship Under Section 360, Subdivision (a)(1)
       At the disposition hearing, “[a]fter receiving and
considering evidence on the appropriate disposition, the juvenile
court may (1) order a legal guardian be appointed for the child
(§ 360, subd. (a)); (2) order informal services without adjudicating
the child a dependent (id., subd. (b)); or (3) adjudge the child a
dependent of the juvenile court (id., subd. (d)).” (In re L.A. (2009)
180 Cal.App.4th 413, 425; accord, In re G.W. (2009)
173 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1436.) “‘Before the juvenile court may
appoint a legal guardian pursuant to subdivision (a) of
section 360, each of the following must occur: (1) the court must
find that the child is a person described by section 300; (2) the
parent must advise the court that he or she is not interested in
family maintenance or family reunification services; (3) the court
must determine that a legal guardianship is in the best interests
of the child; (4) the parent and the child must agree to the

                                  8
appointment; (5) the court must advise the parent and child that
reunification services will not be provided; and (6) the court must
order an assessment of the person whom the court anticipates
appointing as the legal guardian.’”4 (In re L.A., at p. 425; accord,
In re G.W., at p. 1437; see In re Summer H. (2006)
139 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1331 [“[S]ection 360 is triggered by the
custodial parent’s express approval of both a guardianship for the
child and the prospective guardian and the juvenile court’s
finding, based on all the evidence, including a statutorily
prescribed review of the proposed guardian’s criminal history
(§ 360, subd. (a)(4)), that the proposed guardianship is in the
child’s best interests.”].)
       The juvenile court has “the discretion to order legal
guardianship under section 360, subdivision (a).” (In re L.A.,
supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 419; see In re Summer H., supra,

4      Section 360, subdivision (a)(1), provides in part,
“Notwithstanding any other law, if the court finds that the child
is a person described by Section 300 and the parent has advised
the court that the parent is not interested in family maintenance
or family reunification services and has executed a written
waiver of any of those services, the court may, in addition to or in
lieu of adjudicating the child a dependent child of the court, order
a legal guardianship, appoint a legal guardian, and issue letters
of guardianship, if the court determines that a guardianship is in
the best interest of the child, provided the parent and the child
agree to the guardianship, unless the child’s age or physical,
emotional, or mental condition prevents the child’s meaningful
response. The court shall advise the parent and the child that
reunification services will not be provided as a result of the
establishment of a guardianship. The proceeding for the
appointment of a guardian shall be in the juvenile court.”

                                 9
139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1321.) Custody determinations are
“committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court,” and
such rulings “should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse
of discretion is clearly established.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994)
7 Cal.4th 295, 318; see In re J.M. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 707, 717-
718 [juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in appointing
maternal grandmother as legal guardian under section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(4)(A)].)

C.    The Six-month Review Hearing Under Section 366.21,
      Subdivision (e)
      “‘Family preservation, with the attendant reunification
plan and reunification services, is the first priority when child
dependency proceedings are commenced. [Citation.]
Reunification services implement “the law’s strong preference for
maintaining the family relationships if at all possible.”
[Citation.]’ [Citation.] Reunification services are typically
understood as a benefit provided to parents, because services
enable them to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain
custody of their dependent children.” (In re Nolan W. (2009)
45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228; accord, Michael G. v. Superior Court
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624 [“When a child has been removed from
a parent’s custody, the court ordinarily must order child welfare
services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family.”].)
      “[A]t the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court must
decide whether return of a dependent child to the parent would
be detrimental to the child. Section 366.21, subdivision (e)
requires the court, in making this decision, to ‘consider the efforts
or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent . . . and the
extent to which he or she availed himself or herself [of] services

                                 10
provided,’ and it specifies that ‘failure of the parent or legal
guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress
in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie
evidence that return would be detrimental.’” (In re Nolan W.,
supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1235; accord, Bridget A. v. Superior Court
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 305 [“There is a statutory
presumption the child will be returned to parental custody unless
the court finds the child’s return would create ‘a substantial risk
of detriment to the physical or emotional well-being’ of the
child.”].)

D.     Mother’s Failure To Request Legal Guardianship Forfeited
       the Issue
       Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in
failing to appoint Jennice as the legal guardian for Journee at the
six-month review hearing. But Mother did not file a section 388
petition to request a change in the disposition order and
appointment of a legal guardianship. (In re Christopher L. (2022)
12 Cal.5th 1063, 1079-1080 [“Section 388 authorizes a parent ‘or
other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent
child of the juvenile court’ to petition the juvenile court ‘to
change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or
to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.’”]; In re Marilyn H.
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 308-309 [“[T]hroughout the reunification
period and thereafter, the parent has the continuing right to
petition the court for a modification of any of its orders based
upon changed circumstances or new evidence pursuant to
section 388.”].) Nor did Mother request legal guardianship at the
disposition hearing or six-month review hearing. Further,
Mother did not inform the court that she was “not interested in

                                11
family maintenance or family reunification services,” and she did
not execute “a written waiver of any of those services” as
mandated by section 360, subdivision (a)(1), before the court can
appoint a legal guardian. Instead, at the six-month review
hearing, Mother sought termination of jurisdiction or return of
Journee to Mother’s physical custody.
       Because Mother did not request the court appoint Jennice
as Journee’s legal guardian, she forfeited her contention that the
juvenile court abused its discretion in not appointing Jennice as
Journee’s legal guardian at the six-month review hearing. “[A]
reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a
ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the
trial court.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293; accord, In re
R.Q. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 462, 470 [presumed father forfeited
issue where he “argued broadly that he wanted to reunify with
both minors and have them placed with him,” but “he did not
argue that placement of minor with C.H. would interfere with his
visitation or minor’s relationship with her sister”]; In re Maria Q.
(2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 577, 590 [“‘A party forfeits the right to
claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails
to raise the objection in the trial court.’”].)5 Moreover, we cannot

5     Mother also contends the Department and the juvenile
court failed to comply with ICWA and related California law.
She challenges the Department’s failure to interview the
maternal grandmother and maternal great-aunts and the
adequacy of the IWCA notice, raising the same arguments she
asserted in her first appeal, In re Journee E., supra, B323959. As
discussed, we found the ICWA notice was adequate, and we
dismissed Mother’s appeal of the ICWA inquiry as moot because

                                 12
evaluate whether the court abused its discretion in not
appointing Jennice as the legal guardian because the court was
never presented with a request, and further, there was no
evaluation of Jennice as a possible legal guardian. And, as
discussed, the other requirements for appointment of a legal
guardian were not met.

                         DISPOSITION

     The orders are affirmed.

                                         FEUER, J.
We concur:

             SEGAL, Acting P. J.

             MARTINEZ, J.

the Department interviewed the two maternal great-aunts while
Mother’s appeal was pending. (Ibid.)

                                13