In re Derek A. CA2/7 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/24/23 In re Derek A. 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DEREK A., a Person                                     B327632
    Coming Under the Juvenile
    Court Law.                                                   (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No.
    22CCJP03584A)
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY
    DEPARTMENT OF
    CHILDREN AND FAMILY
    SERVICES,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    FABIOLA M.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Dismissed.
    Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
    Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County
    Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ______________________
    The juvenile court declared now-10-year-old Derek A. a
    dependent child of the court after sustaining a petition pursuant
    to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and
    former (b)(1),1 alleging Fabiola M., Derek’s mother, had engaged
    in incidents of domestic violence with her boyfriend in Derek’s
    presence and endangered Derek’s physical safety by allowing her
    boyfriend to reside in the family home despite his ongoing alcohol
    abuse. The sustained petition also alleged Fabiola had medically
    neglected Derek by failing to ensure he received surgery to repair
    a life-threatening heart defect. On appeal Fabiola challenges
    only the jurisdiction finding regarding medical neglect. Because
    we cannot grant Fabiola any effective relief, we dismiss the
    appeal.
    1      The Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code
    section 300, effective January 1, 2023, in part by rewriting
    subdivision (b)(1) to now specify in separate subparagraphs
    various ways in which a child may come within the jurisdiction of
    the juvenile court as a result of the failure or inability of the
    child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or care for the
    child.
    Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
    Code unless otherwise stated.
    2
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    1. The Petition and First Amended Petition
    On September 14, 2022 the Department filed a section 300
    petition alleging, pursuant to subdivisions (a) and former (b)(1),
    that Fabiola and her boyfriend, Robert R., had a history of
    engaging in violent altercations in Derek’s presence that placed
    Derek at substantial risk of serious physical harm.2 In a
    separate count pursuant to former subdivision (b)(1), the
    Department alleged Fabiola allowed Robert to reside in the
    family home despite knowing he was a current abuser of alcohol,
    which placed Derek at substantial risk of serious physical harm.
    On November 2, 2022 the Department filed a first amended
    petition, which added an allegation pursuant to section 300,
    former subdivision (b)(1), that Derek was a medically fragile child
    who had been diagnosed with several serious medical conditions,
    including a serious heart defect. The Department alleged Fabiola
    had failed to ensure Derek received surgery to correct the heart
    defect and had sabotaged efforts of the Department and the
    caregiver to obtain the surgery.3
    2     Documents filed in the juvenile court in this case prior to
    February 1, 2023 were not included in the record on appeal. The
    documents were, however, included in the records in two
    previously dismissed appeals filed by Fabiola (B324541 and
    B326095). We augment the record on our own motion to include
    the records from those cases. (See Cal. Rules of Court,
    rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
    3     One week prior to the filing of the first amended petition,
    the juvenile court granted the Department’s request to limit
    Fabiola’s medical rights and granted his caretaker (maternal
    aunt Veronica M.) authority to provide legal consent for medical
    care.
    3
    2. The Jurisdiction Hearing
    According to the detention and jurisdiction/disposition
    reports, Fabiola, Robert and Derek lived with Fabiola’s parents
    and Fabiola’s adult daughter in a senior living facility. Several
    family members and neighbors reported numerous domestic
    disturbances in the household with police intervention as often as
    once a week. In addition to reports of physical altercations
    between Robert and Fabiola, family members stated Fabiola had
    hit and kicked her parents at various times. During the most
    recent incident in July 2022 Robert and Fabiola called each other
    names and pushed and scratched each other. Police were called.
    They determined Fabiola had been the aggressor and arrested
    her. Derek said he had seen and heard the fight.
    In addition to his unrepaired heart defect, Derek had been
    diagnosed with cerebral palsy, spasticity, seizure disorder,
    asthma, developmental delay and scoliosis. He received his
    medications and at least some nutrition through a gastrostomy
    tube. His last seizure was in August 2022.
    In June 2022 Derek’s cardiologist told Fabiola that Derek’s
    heart defect needed to be repaired, and he explained the need for
    surgery in detail. The cardiologist’s notes indicated Fabiola was
    “reticent” about surgery and did not want to make a decision
    until a custody dispute was resolved. The doctor also told Fabiola
    he was retiring and she should find a new doctor within the next
    two months to get a second opinion. As of October 2022 Fabiola
    had not taken any steps to find a new cardiologist or move
    forward with the surgery.
    When the Department asked Fabiola about the need for
    surgery, she initially said Derek needed an ultrasound before the
    procedure and he could not get an ultrasound at the hospital
    4
    because he had not been vaccinated for COVID-19. The
    Department noted that the medical records did not indicate a
    need for an ultrasound. Fabiola also stated no one had explained
    the procedure to her and she was concerned Derek was too small
    for surgery. Later, Fabiola claimed she had not scheduled
    Derek’s surgery because his father did not consent to it,4 she
    could not afford it; there were lapses in Derek’s insurance
    coverage; she was moving and dealing with her other children;
    and it was put off because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    At the detention hearing the court ordered that Derek
    undergo an examination at a Los Angeles County medical hub
    clinic. After that examination Derek was referred to a
    cardiologist who advised that his heart defect should be repaired
    within the next three months. In a later conversation with the
    Department, the cardiologist explained the situation was not
    urgent but Derek should have the surgery within the next year.
    Throughout this process Fabiola repeatedly cancelled
    medical appointments for Derek by calling physicians’ offices and
    using a mobile application. When asked about this by the
    Department, Fabiola denied cancelling appointments, claiming
    her phone had been hacked or that Derek’s father had cancelled
    the appointments. Fabiola asserted Derek did not need the heart
    surgery based on the opinion of his primary care doctor, who was
    4     Derek’s father, Israel O., informed the Department Fabiola
    had not let him see Derek in three years. He never opposed the
    heart surgery nor had there been a custody dispute preventing
    the surgery. Israel also stated he had stopped having visits with
    Derek because Fabiola would repeatedly call the police to report
    him during visits even after visits were moved to a park outside
    the police station.
    5
    not a cardiologist. She also stated the cardiologist recommending
    surgery had several serious complaints against him. The
    Department determined there were no such complaints. Fabiola
    also cancelled multiple appointments the caregiver, maternal
    aunt Veronica M., had scheduled to receive training for Derek’s
    care. Fabiola was reluctant to give Veronica Derek’s medical
    equipment and medication, at one point denying she had the
    medication, despite records showing it had been shipped to her
    home. She also claimed Derek no longer needed his gastrostomy
    tube; however, Derek’s doctor stated Derek needed to take
    medication and possibly nutrition through the tube for at least a
    few more months.
    The Department reported Fabiola had been erratic,
    uncooperative and confrontational with the caregiver and
    Department staff. Fabiola had called the police multiple times,
    requesting welfare checks on Derek while he was residing with
    Veronica. She also argued with Department staff during visits
    and repeatedly discussed the case with Derek even after being
    admonished not to do so. She bombarded Department staff with
    telephone calls, emails and text messages regarding visitation
    scheduling and what she perceived as the staff’s inappropriate
    behavior. Because of Fabiola’s erratic behavior, poor judgment
    and baseless accusations, the Department requested Fabiola
    undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
    At the jurisdiction hearing on January 6, 2023 the juvenile
    court sustained the allegations in the first amended petition. The
    court noted Fabiola did not deny the domestic violence incidents
    had occurred, although she claimed not to be the aggressor, and
    there was evidence in the record indicating Fabiola wanted to
    continue her relationship with Robert. Turning to the medical
    6
    neglect allegation, the court found Fabiola had delayed getting
    Derek necessary surgery and had otherwise interfered with his
    medical care. The court repeatedly expressed concern about
    Fabiola’s credibility and judgment. Finally, revisiting its earlier
    order limiting Fabiola’s medical rights, the court reiterated its
    finding there was clear and convincing evidence it was in Derek’s
    best interests for Fabiola not to be involved in making medical
    decisions for him.
    3. The Disposition Hearing
    In a report filed February 1, 2023 the Department informed
    the court Derek had successfully undergone heart surgery
    three weeks earlier and was recovering well. Derek had failed
    hearing tests in both ears and might require hearing assistance
    devices. The Department also reported Fabiola had continued to
    be uncooperative and combative with Department staff and there
    were ongoing concerns about her judgment and credibility. The
    Department again requested Fabiola be required to undergo a
    psychiatric evaluation.
    At the disposition hearing on February 8, 2023 the juvenile
    court removed Derek from Fabiola, finding by clear and
    convincing evidence that Derek was at risk of harm in Fabiola’s
    care. In making this finding the court relied on the repeated and
    recent domestic violence in the home, as well as Fabiola’s refusal
    to ensure Derek was receiving critical medical care. The court
    found, if Derek were released to Fabiola, she would continue to
    rely on medical professionals who lacked specialized training.
    The court agreed with the Department that there were signs of
    an undiagnosed mental health condition, noting Fabiola lacked
    understanding of her situation, and appointed an expert
    pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 to examine Fabiola. The
    7
    court stated that Fabiola’s “focus is on fighting with the
    Department, rather than focusing on [Derek’s] needs.”
    The court ordered family reunification services and
    monitored visits for Fabiola for three hours per week in a neutral
    setting. Fabiola filed a timely notice of appeal.5
    DISCUSSION
    “A court is tasked with the duty to decide actual
    controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and
    not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,
    or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
    matter in issue in the case before it. A case becomes moot when
    events render it impossible for a court, if it should decide the case
    in favor of plaintiff, to grant him any effective relief. For relief to
    be effective, two requirements must be met. First, the plaintiff
    must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the harm must be
    redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the
    plaintiff seeks.” (In re D.P. (2023) 
    14 Cal.5th 266
    , 276 [cleaned
    up].)
    5     In addition to the current appeal Fabiola filed multiple
    appeals from nonappealable orders entered prior to the
    disposition hearing, which we dismissed (B324541, B326095 and
    B326333), and has pending appeals from a May 10, 2023 order
    reducing her visitation time (B329302), a July 10, 2023 order
    regarding the psychiatric evaluation (B330720) and orders
    entered at the August 9, 2023 six-month review at which the
    court found that Fabiola’s compliance with her case plan had only
    been partial and that returning Derek to Fabiola’s physical
    custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child
    (B331754).
    8
    Fabiola contends the court’s jurisdiction finding of medical
    neglect is not supported by substantial evidence. However, even
    if we were to agree with Fabiola and reverse the jurisdiction
    finding of medical neglect, jurisdiction over Derek would continue
    based on the court’s sustained jurisdiction findings regarding
    domestic violence and Robert’s substance abuse. (See In re D.P.,
    supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 283-284 [“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 [“[a]s long as
    there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial
    that another might be inappropriate”]; see also In re M.W. (2015)
    
    238 Cal.App.4th 1444
    , 1452; In re Briana V. (2015)
    
    236 Cal.App.4th 297
    , 310-311.) Nor would a reversal of the
    medical neglect finding limit the court’s authority to make all
    orders necessary to protect Derek: The juvenile 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
    that 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 K.T. (2020)
    
    49 Cal.App.5th 20
    , 25; accord, In re Briana V., at p. 311 [“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 I.A. (2011) 
    201 Cal.App.4th 1484
    , 1492 [“[a] jurisdictional
    finding involving the conduct of a particular parent is not
    necessary for the court to enter orders binding on that parent,
    9
    once dependency jurisdiction has been established”]; see
    generally § 362, subd. (a) [the juvenile court “may make any and
    all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct,
    maintenance, and support of the child”].) Accordingly, reversal
    would have no effect on the court’s jurisdiction over Derek or
    mandate a change to the disposition order. Because we can
    provide no effective relief to Fabiola—that is, relief that “‘can
    have a practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal
    status’” (In re D.P., at p. 277)—her appeal is moot.
    Fabiola contends her appeal is not moot because the
    medical neglect finding formed the basis for the court’s
    disposition order removing Derek from Fabiola’s custody—an
    order that continues to adversely affect Fabiola. While this may
    be true, Fabiola has not challenged the disposition order on
    appeal. She provides no argument that the removal order was
    unsupported by clear and convincing evidence that Derek would
    be at substantial risk of physical or emotional harm if Derek were
    returned to her care, nor does she suggest any reasonable means
    by which Derek could have been protected without removal. (See
    § 361, subd. (c).) Accordingly, even if the medical neglect finding
    were reversed, Fabiola has not established any basis on which we
    could (or should) reverse the disposition order.6
    6      Without directly challenging the disposition order, Fabiola
    argues we should reverse the medical neglect finding and remand
    the matter for the juvenile court to reconsider its disposition
    order. However, the court removed Derek from Fabiola’s care
    based on several factors, including ongoing domestic violence and
    Fabiola’s erratic behavior and inability to prioritize Derek’s
    needs. Nothing in the record suggests the court would make
    different orders at disposition if the medical neglect finding were
    10
    Fabiola also argues we should exercise our discretion to
    consider her moot appeal because the medical neglect finding is
    particularly egregious and could impact future dependency
    proceedings. However, such a speculative claim of future harm is
    insufficient to obviate mootness. (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at
    p. 278.) In addition, Fabiola does not dispute the central fact
    underlying the medical neglect finding—she did not schedule a
    procedure to repair Derek’s heart defect. While she maintains
    she had valid reasons for her decision, in light of her concession
    and the evidence from Derek’s doctors that he needed the
    surgery, all of which will be admissible in any future proceedings
    involving Derek, the court’s additional finding that Fabiola’s
    failure to pursue the recommended treatment constituted neglect
    is not particularly harsh or extreme. No other factor justifies
    reaching the merits of this moot appeal.
    DISPOSITION
    The appeal is dismissed as moot.
    PERLUSS, P. J.
    We concur:
    SEGAL, J.                     MARTINEZ, J.
    reversed. And, as discussed, Fabiola made no showing the
    disposition order requires reversal.
    11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B327632

Filed Date: 10/24/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/24/2023