In re K.L. CA2/4 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/24/24 In re K.L. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re K.L. et al., Persons Coming B331307
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No.
AND FAMILY SERVICES, 21CCJP02750
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.L.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Brett Bianco, Judge. Reversed in part and
affirmed in part.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND1
M.L. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders
asserting dependency jurisdiction over her three children, 15-
year-old K.L., 9-year-old E.L., and 7-year-old A.L. The
Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed
a Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300 petition on the
children’s behalf after police found the family home in an
unsanitary and hazardous condition. Relevant to this appeal, the
juvenile court sustained the petition and declared the children
dependents of the court under section 300, subdivision (b). In
exercising jurisdiction over the children, the court found true the
allegations that the children were at substantial risk of serious
physical harm due to: (1) mother establishing a filthy,
unsanitary, and hazardous home (count b-1); and (2) mother’s
mental and emotional condition (count b-2).
On appeal, mother challenges the jurisdictional findings
that the children were at risk due to her unsanitary home and
mental illness. She contends the findings are unsupported by
substantial evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds.
Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) The parties are familiar with the facts and
procedural history of the case, so we do not fully restate those
details here. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851
[unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of juvenile
court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal
statement” (fn. omitted)].) Instead, in the Discussion below, we
discuss the facts and procedural background as needed to provide
context for and resolve the issues presented in this appeal.
2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
2
the finding pertaining to count b-1, but affirm the finding arising
under count b-2.
DISCUSSION
I. Justiciability
Preliminarily, we address the Department’s argument that
mother’s appeal should be dismissed as moot. Mother
acknowledges her appeal is moot because, while this appeal was
pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over the
children and awarded her sole physical and legal custody. Mother
requests we nevertheless exercise our discretion to consider her
appeal on its merits as her status as an “offending” parent could
have consequences in future proceedings concerning her custody
of the children.
“An order terminating juvenile court jurisdiction generally
renders an appeal from an earlier order moot.” (In re Rashad D.
(2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 163.) “However, dismissal of a
dependency appeal for mootness following termination of
jurisdiction ‘is not automatic, but “must be decided on a case-by-
case basis.”’” (Ibid.) “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 [or her] any effect[ive] relief.”’ [Citation.]
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 (D.P.).) Thus, to avoid a finding of mootness, the appealing
parent must “demonstrate[ ] a specific legal or practical
consequence that would be avoided upon reversal of the
[challenged] jurisdictional findings.” (Id. at p. 273.)
3
In dependency cases, our Supreme Court has set forth
several factors that may be considered in deciding whether to
review jurisdictional findings in an otherwise moot appeal. (D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 283, 285–286.) These factors include
whether the finding “‘could be prejudicial to the appellant or
could potentially impact the current or future dependency
proceedings [citations]; or . . . “could have other consequences for
[the appellant], beyond jurisdiction.”’” (Id. at p. 283; see also In re
J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1431–1432 [holding the Court
of Appeal has discretion to consider an appeal of jurisdictional
findings where they could impact future proceedings].) Other
factors include whether the jurisdictional finding is based on
particularly pernicious or stigmatizing conduct and the reason
why the appeal became moot. (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 285–
286.) “The factors above are not exhaustive, and no single factor
is necessarily dispositive of whether a court should exercise
discretionary review of a moot appeal.” (Id. at p. 286.)
Having considered the D.P. factors, we conclude
discretionary review is appropriate in this case. Specifically, we
find the jurisdictional findings against mother may play a role in
future dependency and/or family law proceedings, such that
“ensuring the validity of [the challenged] findings . . . [is]
particularly important.” (D.P., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 285.) The
allegations in this current case are similar to prior allegations
against mother. Specifically, in 2005 the juvenile court sustained
a section 300 petition on behalf of the children’s older sibling due
to filthy and unsanitary home conditions. In 2021, the juvenile
court sustained another section 300 petition after mother’s home
was again “found to be in a filthy and unsanitary condition.” At
that time, the home had a roach infestation, droppings, and
4
gnats. Bottles, cans, clothes, toys, trash, and clutter filled the
bedroom. A bucket of urine was in the bedroom and dirty dishes
and old food were in the kitchen. Mother claimed the children’s
father, who had no contact with the family, was putting trash in
the apartment while the family was sleeping or not home.
In addition, the parties do not dispute that jurisdiction was
terminated based on mother’s prompt compliance with her court-
ordered case plan; therefore, “discretionary review [is] especially
appropriate” in this case. (D.P., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 286.)
Accordingly, we will exercise our discretion to reach the merits of
her appeal of the jurisdictional findings.
II. Mother’s Jurisdictional Challenges
A. Governing Principles and Standard of Review
Under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the juvenile court has
jurisdiction over a child where there is a substantial risk the
child will be harmed by certain enumerated conduct of a parent
or guardian. This conduct includes “[t]he failure or inability of
the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect
the child” and “[t]he inability of the parent or guardian to provide
regular care for the child due to the parent’s or guardian’s
mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.”
(§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A), (D).) “A jurisdictional finding under
section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires [the Department] to
demonstrate the following three elements by a preponderance of
the evidence: (1) neglectful conduct, failure, or inability by the
parent; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a
substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness.” (In re L.W.
(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848.)
5
“Although section 300 generally requires proof the child is
subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction
hearing [citations], the court need not wait until a child is
seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps
necessary to protect the child [citation]. The court may consider
past events in deciding whether a child currently needs the
court’s protection. [Citation.] A parent’s ‘“[p]ast conduct may be
probative of current conditions” if there is reason to believe that
the conduct will continue.’” (In re Kadence P. (2015) 241
Cal.App.4th 1376, 1383–1384 overruled on other grounds in In re
N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520, 560, fn. 18; see In re T.V. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 126, 133 [“[t]he focus of section 300 is on averting
harm to the child”].) To establish a risk of harm at the time of the
adjudication hearing, “[t]here must be some reason beyond mere
speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.” (In re
James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136, abrogated on other
grounds by In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628.)
We review jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence.
(In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.) “Substantial
evidence must be of ponderable legal significance. It is not
synonymous with ‘any’ evidence. [Citation.] The evidence must be
reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (In re Dakota
H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) “[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., supra,
7 Cal.App.5th at p. 992.) The test is whether it was reasonable for
the trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the
whole record. (Ibid.)
6
“We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of
witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts.” (In re Dakota H.,
supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 228.) “The appellant has the burden
of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial
nature to support the finding or order.” (Ibid.)
B. Analysis
1. Unsanitary Home
With respect to count b-1, mother contends the record lacks
substantial evidence demonstrating that, at the time of the
adjudication hearing on May 31, 2023, the children were at
substantial risk of serious physical harm due to their unsanitary
home. In support of her assertion, mother argues that by the time
of the jurisdictional hearing, the home had been “fixed up,” the
living room and bedroom had new paint, the bathroom had been
cleaned, the plumbing worked, the apartment manager said
everything was in working order, a city inspector had closed the
case involving the home, and a Department social worker said
the home was “‘habitable and sanitary.’” We agree with her
contentions.
The family originally came to the Department’s attention
after neighbors called the police because, due to the smell, they
believed there was a dead person inside the family’s apartment.
When mother opened the door for police, an overwhelming smell
of mildew and a horrible stench emanated from the apartment.
When mother opened the door further, police observed animal
feces, human feces, and urine on the floor and in buckets
throughout the living and dining room. They also observed
roaches, gnats, and other insects covering the walls, swarming
over decomposed food on the table, and on the floor. Black mold
7
covered the ceiling and window frames. The living room carpet
appeared soiled with feces and piled with dirty clothes. The
kitchen sink was piled with dishes, and the kitchen floor was
piled with spoiled food.
Police entered the bedroom and observed broken bunk beds
with mattresses on the floor piled under dirty clothes, dishes, and
old food. Insects covered the ceiling and swarmed the air. Black
mold covered the bedroom window frame. One of the mattresses
had feces pellets resembling those of a rodent on it. The bedroom
carpet was covered in what appeared to be dirt and feces. Police
found the bathroom was inoperable. The bathtub was covered in
dirt and orange grime. The sink was blocked with sludgy water.
The toilet was clogged with piled feces, and toilet paper fell onto
the floor. There was no food, blankets, or clean clothing in the
home. Based on the condition of the home, police officers called
housing authorities and the Department.
When a Department social worker entered the apartment
later that day, they observed the same conditions as the police
did along with additional issues. Many flies and roaches emerged
when the social worker opened the non-operable refrigerator. The
kitchen sink was clogged and full of dirty water with a strong
smell of decay. The shower was not working. Based on the home’s
condition, the Department detained the children from mother.
On May 5, 2023, the Department met mother in her home
and observed the bedroom had new paint and the bathroom was
cleaned. By May 18, 2023, the city had inspected the apartment.
Because there were no longer any violations and the home was
clean, the inspector closed the case. The apartment manager
reported the pipes had been repaired on May 15, 2023, and
“about 90 percent progress” had been made by May 23, 2023. By
8
May 30, 2023, the manager reported everything in the apartment
had been repaired. He had changed the light bulbs, put primer on
the kitchen walls, and provided mother with a new working
stove. According to the manager, everything was in order except
the carpet needed to be cleaned again. On May 30, 2023, the
Department reported the home appeared habitable and sanitary.
As indicated above, in the time between the detention
hearing on April 19, 2023, and the adjudication hearing on May
31, 2023, mother resolved the issue of the unsanitary home.
Accordingly, we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence to
support a finding that, at the time of the adjudication hearing,
the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm due
to mother’s unsanitary home. Thus, the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional finding based on count b-1 must be reversed. 3
C. Mental Health
With respect to count b-2, mother contends the record lacks
substantial evidence demonstrating that, at the time of the
adjudication hearing, the children were at substantial risk of
serious physical harm due to her mental illness. In support of her
assertion, mother alleges the children had not suffered any harm
nor were they at risk of suffering harm due to her mental illness.
Moreover, while not entirely clear, mother seems to contend she
3 No doubt the juvenile court understandably was concerned
that, due to her unresolved mental illness, mother would allow
the home to revert to its prior unsanitary condition. In our view,
that legitimate concern of risk of future harm relates more closely
to count b-2 than b-1. Because we agree mother’s home no longer
posed a current risk of harm at the time of the adjudication
hearing, we do not address her argument that the condition of
the home did not cause the children to suffer any harm.
9
resolved her mental health issues after her discharge from her
section 51504 hold and by the time of the jurisdictional hearing.
For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded by her
argument.
When police arrived at the apartment, mother had a
“‘glazed over’ blank expression,” “looked off into the distance
when speaking,” and “did not make direct eye contact.” Mother’s
responses “were very scattered, inconsistent[,] and irrational.”
Mother reported her ex-husband, the children’s father, would
sneak into the apartment when no one was home and throw
garbage and dirt inside. Mother, however, admitted father
neither lived with nor had any contact with the family. Based on
her demeanor and responses, police believed mother was
suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness and took her to the
hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. At the hospital, doctors
placed mother on a section 5150 hold.
When a social worker interviewed mother at the hospital,
mother was crying, did not make eye contact, and seemed
distant. Mother alleged the condition of the home was not her
fault. Even though she tried to keep the home clean and
organized, she could not because father wanted “to take revenge
on her.” Mother had no contact with father since August 2022
but, she asserted, he would look for a way to enter the home
4 Under section 5150, certain officials (including law
enforcement and certain medical professionals) are authorized to
bring an individual to a designated mental health facility for
evaluation if there is “probable cause to believe that the person
is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, or to
themselves, or gravely disabled.” (§ 5150, subd. (e).) The
individual may be placed into custody “for a period of up to 72
hours” for evaluation. (Id., subd. (a).)
10
when no one was home. She claimed father would bring garbage
and dirt into the home, leave the home full of trash and bags of
clothing, and clog the toilet and the kitchen sink. She also
claimed he “left a black cross with salt in the house, so nothing
good will happen” to her or the children.
When interviewed by the Department in early May, mother
claimed she “came back fine” from her section 5150 hospital stay.
She was taking the 10 pills the hospital gave her for stress, and
she felt “fine.” Mother denied having a mental health diagnosis
and reported she was told: “it was just stress.” Mother denied
ever having a mental health diagnosis in the past or being
prescribed medication in the past. She explained that during her
hospitalization she was told she could attend therapy if she
wanted to, but that she did not need it.
When mother was discharged from the hospital, she was
advised to follow up with urgent care as needed and was
prescribed medication. She also had a follow-up appointment
with San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health (San
Fernando Community) on April 27, 2023. The San Fernando
Community records indicate mother was assigned a case
manager but never returned for services. When the Department
called mother to follow up regarding her missed April
appointment, mother did not respond. A follow-up text from the
Department showed mother “read” the messages, but never
responded.
K.L. excused the living situation and claimed the
apartment had been dirty for only a few days. She reported
“nothing [was] wrong with her house” and she and mother
cleaned the home frequently. Because the bathroom did not work,
all three children used a bucket to relieve themselves. When the
11
bucket was full, mother or K.L. emptied it into the trash outside
the apartment. The children reported they used a neighbor’s
home to bathe. K.L. and E.L. both had a strong unpleasant odor
during their initial contact with the Department. The children all
reported father brought garbage and dirt into the home, but none
of them had seen him do so.
The apartment manager believed mother did “not have the
capacity to take care of” the children because of her mental
health issues. Mother did not listen when having conversations
and would start “‘ta[l]king about something else.” Mother was
“not really there” mentally and would not “let herself be seen.”
She would “go[ ] another way’” when she would see the
apartment manager. Additionally, mother had never reported the
plumbing issues.
Both father and a maternal uncle were concerned about
mother’s mental health issues. Similarly, a neighbor told the
Department she hoped mother got therapy because if not the
children would be better off in another home. The neighbor also
reported she never saw the cross mother told her father had
made in the apartment.
Leading up to the adjudication hearing, mother did not
show any insight into how her mental health issues may have
placed the children at risk of harm. Instead, mother denied
mental health issues and failed to report to her follow-up
appointment. Mother continued to believe the delusion that the
home was unsanitary because of father and convinced her
children to believe the same. Mother also failed to realize the
harm the unsanitary home caused the children. Not only were
the children living among feces and bug infestations, but they
also had no place to bathe, no clean bedding, and no clean
12
clothing. Additionally, the children were forced to use buckets as
a toilet.
Based on mother’s minimization of her mental health
issues and her unawareness of the risks it posed to the children,
the juvenile court could reasonably infer mother’s mental health
issues would continue to cause her to create an unsanitary and
hazardous home. Therefore, the record contains substantial
evidence to support a finding that, at the time of the adjudication
hearing, mother’s mental health issues placed the children at
serious risk of physical harm.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional finding based on count b-1 is reversed.
The jurisdictional finding predicated on count b-2 is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CURREY, P. J.
We concur:
COLLINS, J.
ZUKIN, J.
13