In re J.P. CA2/7 ( 2023 )

Filed 3/21/23 In re J.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.P. et al., Persons Coming B319550
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super.
Ct. No. 22CCJP00011)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JERAMY P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Jeramy P. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s
disposition order declaring his daughters, 11-year-old Je. P.
(Jenna) and eight-year-old Ja. P. (Jaz), dependents of the court.
Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court
abused its discretion in requiring him to submit to a psychiatric
evaluation by the Department of Mental Health. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Referral and Investigation
In 2021 Jenna and Jaz lived with their mother, Crystal R.
(Mother),1 and the maternal grandmother, Melinda C., at
Melinda’s home. On November 12, 2021 the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)
received a referral alleging Father went to Melinda’s home in
search of Mother, and when he was informed that Mother was
not there, Father threatened to “‘shoot’ up the place where
[M]other was at.” The caller suspected Mother was using
methamphetamine because she neglected the children by leaving
them with Melinda without notice and staying out all night until
early morning.
1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
2
In the course of the Department’s investigation, Melinda
told the social worker that Father was a current
methamphetamine user. She suspected Mother also was using
methamphetamine. Melinda reported Mother often left the
children at home to visit her friend Nora, and Mother would not
return home until around six the next morning. Melinda added
that Mother often got drunk and would curse and yell at the
children in the morning when waking them up for school.
Melinda stated Father did not live at her home, but on
multiple occasions, he came looking for Mother and the children.
Melinda often had to call law enforcement because Father would
be “aggressive and violent.” The police call logs showed that from
January to November 2021, Melinda contacted the police on 10
occasions to report that Father was refusing to leave her home or
had made threats against her and Mother. On March 17 Melinda
told police that Father had a backpack containing broken glass
and wanted to leave with the children. Mother contacted the
police the same day to report that Father was armed and kicking
the door. On May 3 Melinda reported Father had attempted the
prior day to break down her front door with a crowbar, and he
had returned and was banging on the door demanding entry.2 In
addition, maternal grandfather, Richard R., called the police in
February and October 2021 to report arguments Father had with
Mother or Melinda at Melinda’s home. On November 27, 2021
Father was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and
sentenced to jail time for violation of his probation.
2 On December 28, 2021 the trial court issued a three-year
civil harassment restraining order protecting Melinda from
Father.
3
Mother acknowledged she had used methamphetamine in
the past, but she denied any current use. She also admitted she
drank alcohol to relax but denied daily drinking. Mother
reported Father was homeless and used methamphetamine.
Mother was not in a relationship with Father, but she allowed
him to have sporadic visits with the children when he was sober.
She also reported that Melinda used cocaine in the past and
drank alcohol almost every day. According to Mother, when
Melinda was drunk, she would be verbally aggressive toward
Mother in the children’s presence. On December 9, 2021 Mother
tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
B. The Dependency Petition and Detention
On January 3, 2022 the Department filed a dependency
petition alleging Mother had a history of substance abuse and
currently abused amphetamine, methamphetamine, and alcohol,
which rendered her incapable of providing regular care of Jenna
and Jaz. The petition also alleged Father had a history of
substance abuse and currently abused methamphetamine, which
rendered him incapable of providing regular care for the children.
Further, Mother created a detrimental and endangering home
environment by permitting Melinda, who had a history of cocaine
and alcohol abuse, to reside with the children and have unlimited
access to them.
At the January 6, 2022 detention hearing, the juvenile
court found Father was the presumed father of Jenna and Jaz.
Father was not present because he was still in jail. The court
released the children to Mother on the condition she reside with
Melinda and submit to drug testing, with no positive or missed
tests. At the February 8, 2022 arraignment hearing for Father,
4
the juvenile court granted Father monitored phone contact with
the children three times per week for three hours each call.
On January 27, 2022 Mother tested positive for
amphetamine and methamphetamine. Mother claimed she took
a pill from a friend thinking it was ibuprofen. Mother insisted
she had not used methamphetamine since her December 2021
relapse. On February 16 the juvenile court detained the children
from Mother and Father and ordered the Department to assess
Melinda’s home for placement of the children.
C. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
The February 7, 2022 jurisdiction and disposition report
stated Mother told a dependency investigator that Father started
using drugs “‘off and on’” in 2015, but in 2021 he began using
drugs daily. Starting in 2021 Father used crystal
methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and alcohol, and he “huffed”
computer cleaner. Mother reported Father’s drug use impacted
his mental health because he experienced visual and auditory
hallucinations even when he was not under the influence of
drugs. On one occasion in August 2021, Mother, Father, and the
children were eating a meal when Father experienced visual
hallucinations. Prior to Father’s November 2021 arrest, Father
would sleep at Mother’s home twice a week. Mother reported
that when Father woke up, he would talk to himself. Mother did
not know if Father had been diagnosed with a mental health
disorder. However, the paternal grandmother told Mother that
Father was bipolar and had been prescribed medication. Mother
did not provide the dependency investigator with the paternal
grandmother’s phone number because she did not want the
paternal relatives to be involved or aware of the dependency case.
5
Jenna told the dependency investigator Father would often
visit the family home and spend time with Jenna and Jaz. Jenna
got along well with Father, and they would play board games or
watch television together. Jaz reported she spoke with Father
regularly on the telephone. Jenna and Jaz denied they had ever
seen Father use drugs.
The dependency investigator attempted to interview Father
by telephone on February 1, 2022, but he did not answer the
phone. On February 3 Mother reported Father told her that he
was aware that the dependency investigator had attempted to
contact him, but he refused to participate in the phone call.
D. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
Father waived his appearance for the March 8, 2022
jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Over the parents’
objections, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the
petition as to Mother’s and Father’s drug use and Mother’s
conduct in allowing Melinda to reside with the children.
At the disposition hearing that followed, the court stated as
to the Department’s request for a psychiatric evaluation of
Father, “the only concern that I have is, what is the basis for that
since the court believes it’s sustained a petition for substance
abuse.” The Department’s attorney responded that the
Department was requesting a psychiatric evaluation because
Mother reported Father was “bipolar and supposed to take
psychotropic medication in the jurisdictional report.” The court
replied, “That was a request for psychological assessment. So I
will order the Department to send Father to the Department of
Mental Health for an evaluation, psychiatric evaluation. If, in
fact, Father does have a psychiatric component and he is self-
6
medicating, then I will order him to take all appropriate
medications if it’s ordered. And I will include that, take all
prescribed medications. If, however, Father does not have a
psychiatric diagnosis, that will be the end of it.”
The court declared the children dependents of the court
under section 300, former subdivision (b)(1),3 and removed them
from Mother’s and Father’s physical custody. The court ordered
Mother and Father to attend a six-month drug and alcohol
treatment program with aftercare, random or on-demand drug
and alcohol testing, developmentally appropriate parenting
classes, and individual counseling to address case issues
supervised by a licensed therapist. The court order required
Father to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and to take any
prescribed medication. The court granted Mother and Father
three monitored visits per week for three hours each visit.
Father timely appealed.4
3 In 2022 the Legislature amended section 300 (Stats. 2022,
ch. 832, § 1), effective January 1, 2023, but the changes do not
affect our analysis. Further statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
4 In his notice of appeal, Father identified the jurisdiction
findings and disposition order as the orders appealed from.
However, Father does not challenge the jurisdiction findings in
his appellate briefs. He has therefore forfeited or abandoned the
issue. (See Tiernan v. Trustees of Cal. State University &
Colleges (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211, 216, fn. 4 [issue not raised on
appeal “deemed waived”]; Swain v. LaserAway Medical Group,
Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 59, 72 [“‘“‘Issues not raised in an
appellant’s brief are [forfeited] or abandoned.’”’”]; Eck v. City of
Los Angeles (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 141, 146 [appellant forfeited or
7
DISCUSSION
A. We Decline To Find Forfeiture
The Department contends Father forfeited his challenge to
the psychiatric evaluation order by failing to object to the order in
the juvenile court. (See In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293
[“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 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.’”].) Father responds that his challenge on appeal goes to
whether substantial evidence supports the disposition order,
which is not forfeited by his failure to object. (See In re J.N.
(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 777, fn. 5 [“a claim that the evidence
is insufficient to support a disposition order in a dependency
matter generally is not forfeited even if not raised below”]; In re
R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 848 [father did not forfeit his
challenge to disposition order requiring removal of minor based
on insufficient evidence]; In re Javier G. (2006)
137 Cal.App.4th 453, 464 [“Even if the parent does not contest
the state of the evidence, he or she preserves the right to
challenge it as insufficient to support a particular legal
conclusion.”].)
Even where applicable, “application of the forfeiture rule is
not automatic.” (In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293.) “But
the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be
abandoned challenge to order denying intervention by not
addressing order in her appellate briefs].)
8
exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal
issue.” (Ibid; accord, In re C.M. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 376, 385.)
Here, Father is challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the disposition order, as well as whether the juvenile
court abused its discretion in requiring that Father undergo a
psychiatric evaluation in light of the evidence. We therefore
exercise our discretion to consider Father’s challenge.
B. Governing Law and Standard of Review
Section 362, subdivision (a), authorizes a juvenile court to
“make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision,
custody, conduct, maintenance, and support” of a dependent
child. Further, the juvenile court may make any reasonable
orders with respect to the parents of a dependent child “as the
court deems necessary and proper to carry out this section.”
(§ 362, subd. (d).) “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 Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th
297, 311; accord, In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1148
[juvenile court “had the authority to order a nonoffending parent
to participate in services”].)
We review the juvenile court’s disposition order for an
abuse of discretion. (In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058,
1071.) “‘The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine
what would best serve and protect the child’s interests and to
fashion a dispositional order accordingly. On appeal, this
determination cannot be reversed absent a clear abuse of
discretion.’” (Ibid; accord, In re K.T. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 20, 25
9
[“We review the juvenile court’s disposition orders for an abuse of
discretion [citation], and review for substantial evidence the
findings of fact on which dispositional orders are based.”].) “‘“The
appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court
exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can
reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no
authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.”’”
(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319; accord, In re
Natalie A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 178, 186-187 [“In reviewing an
order for abuse of discretion, we ‘“must consider all the evidence,
draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary
conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.”’”].)
C. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Ordering a
Psychiatric Evaluation of Father
Father contends substantial evidence did not support the
requirement he submit to a psychiatric evaluation, and therefore
the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering the
evaluation, relying on In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754,
770-771, disapproved on another ground in In re D.P. (2023)
14 Cal.5th 266, 283. The Court of Appeal in Drake M. reversed a
disposition order requiring the father to randomly test for drugs
and to participate in drug counseling and parenting classes. The
Court of Appeal reasoned that absent evidence the father had a
substance abuse problem (there was only evidence of medical
marijuana use), there was no basis to order father to submit to
drug testing and participate in drug counseling because the
conditions would not address mother’s substance abuse and
mental illness. (Id. at p. 770.) The court similarly concluded as
to parenting classes, “[T]here was nothing in the record showing
10
that father needed parenting courses. To the contrary, the record
shows that [the child] was well cared for by father. The
imposition of parenting courses cannot be ‘based on a rote
assumption that [father] could not be an effective single parent
without parenting classes’ and, where, as here, there is nothing
in the record supporting an order for such courses, such an order
is unjustified.” (Ibid.; see In re Jasmin C. (2003)
106 Cal.App.4th 177, 181-182 [reversing disposition order
requiring mother to complete parenting classes where she was
nonoffending parent, did not engage in any inappropriate
behavior with children, and immediately restrained father during
his isolated “rampage” in which he physically harmed the
children].)
Unlike In re Drake M. and In re Jasmin C., substantial
evidence supports the order requiring Father to submit to a
psychiatric evaluation. Mother reported Father suffered visual
and auditory hallucinations even when he was not under the
influence of drugs, including in August 2021 when Father had
visual hallucinations while having a meal with Mother and the
children. Mother also observed Father would wake up and talk
to himself after sleeping over at her home. Further, the paternal
grandmother told Mother that Father was bipolar and had been
prescribed medication.
Father argues Mother was not credible because she denied
using methamphetamine after testing positive for the drug. But
it is not our role in reviewing the juvenile court’s order to
“reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or
resolve evidentiary conflicts.” (In re H.G. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th
1, 13; accord, In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 415.) That
the juvenile court found Mother’s denial of her own drug use not
11
credible does not mean the court could not credit her report of
Father’s hallucinations, especially given that, according to the
grandparents, Mother and Father loved each other. Father
asserts further that any concerning behavior was attributable to
his methamphetamine use and not any mental health issues.
Although the court could have attributed Father’s hallucinations
and aggressive behavior to his methamphetamine use, the court
also could reasonably could have inferred Father suffered from
mental health issues.
Father also argues the juvenile court’s order did not relate
to the conditions that led to the dependency case, that is, Father’s
and Mother’s substance abuse. However, as discussed, the
juvenile court had broad discretion to order Father to submit to a
psychiatric evaluation to protect the children’s wellbeing even
though the sustained petition did not allege Father had mental
health issues. (In re K.T., supra, 49 Cal.App.5th at p. 25 [“The
court’s broad discretion to determine what would best serve and
protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in
accord with this discretion, permits the court to formulate
disposition orders to address parental deficiencies when
necessary to protect and promote the child’s welfare, even when
that parental conduct did not give rise to the dependency
proceedings.”]; In re Briana V., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311.)
Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
ordering Father to submit to a psychiatric evaluation in light of
Father’s visual and auditory hallucinations and his reported
prior bipolar diagnosis.
12
DISPOSITION
The disposition order is affirmed.
FEUER, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
SEGAL, J.
13