In re Larry C. CA2/2 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B324556

Filed Date: 12/1/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/1/2023