Opinion
B309590
12-28-2021
In re JULIUS M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. RASHEED D., Defendant and Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, STEVE R., Defendant and Appellant; JULIUS M., a Minor, etc., Respondent.
Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 20CCJP02991B-C, Mary E. Kelly, Judge.
Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
EDMON, P.J.
This dependency appeal concerns jurisdictional and dispositional orders entered as to Julius M., who was born in December 2011. Julius's mother is Dione M. (mother); two men- appellant Steve R. and respondent Rasheed D.-claim to be Julius's father. Steve urges on appeal that the juvenile court erred by dismissing the sole count of the dependency petition that alleged wrongdoing by Rasheed, and by placing Julius with Rasheed under DCFS supervision. We conclude that Steve lacks standing to raise several of his appellate contentions, and the remaining contention lacks merit. We therefore will affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Prior Dependency and Family Court Proceedings
1. 2002 and 2010 Proceedings
In 2002, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging that Julius's half-brother, Matthew M., was a juvenile court dependent because mother had a history of drug abuse and had tested positive for cocaine at Matthew's birth. The juvenile court terminated parental rights to Matthew in 2004, and Matthew was adopted by his maternal grandmother.
The record does not contain any information about Matthew's father.
In 2010, DCFS filed a second petition alleging that Julius's half-sister, Passion M. (born in March 2010), was a juvenile court dependent because mother tested positive for cocaine and marijuana at her birth. Mother successfully completed court-ordered services, and Passion was returned to mother's custody in November 2012.
Passion's father is James S., who is not a party to these proceedings.
2. 2017 Family Court Proceedings
Julius was born in December 2011 and apparently lived with mother until about December 2016. In early January 2017, Rasheed filed a petition in the Riverside County Superior Court seeking sole legal and physical custody of Julius. Rasheed stated that mother had prevented him from seeing or contacting Julius during most of his life; however, on December 26, 2016, mother telephoned Rasheed and said he should pick up Julius because a child dependency case had been filed against her. On February 9, 2017, the court granted Rasheed sole legal and physical custody of Julius pending a subsequent hearing.
The 2010 petition was filed before Julius was born. It does not appear that DCFS filed an amended petition naming Julius after his birth.
On February 27, 2017, Steve filed a motion to be joined as a party in the custody proceeding. His supporting declaration stated that he had been involved in Julius's life since birth; he had attended all of Julius's school functions, doctor's appointments, recitals, and birthday parties; he had provided Julius with the necessities of life, including a home, food, and clothing; he believed he was Julius's biological father, and he loved Julius deeply. He sought a DNA test and custody of Julius.
On March 2, 2017, at a hearing at which Rasheed was the only party present, the court granted Rasheed sole legal and physical custody of Julius. On April 17, 2017, the court joined Steve as an indispensable party and ordered Rasheed, Steve, and Julius to submit to DNA tests.
Riverside County Child Protective Services reported that a paternity test had established that Rasheed is Julius's biological father.
DCFS received four calls from unidentified callers concerning Julius's safety in Rasheed's home in June and July 2017. On June 9, DCFS received a report that Julius had cut all the wires in the home of Rasheed and his wife, Shelonda D. When law enforcement arrived, Rasheed and Shelonda were intoxicated, and Shelonda was yelling at Julius that he was bad and needed to leave. On June 18, DCFS received a report that Shelonda had hit Julius at least three times as he was trying to run away. Law enforcement went to the home, where they found Julius had a cut on his cheek and three welt marks across his chest that appeared to have been inflicted by a belt or cord. On July 10, DCFS received a report that Julius had a dark purple bruise around his left eye, and Julius had disclosed that Rasheed had hit him with a belt days earlier. Finally, on July 21, DCFS received a report that Julius was being beaten and verbally abused by Rasheed and Shelonda. It does not appear that a dependency case was opened in response to any of these reports.
On August 24, 2017, mother, Rasheed, and Steve all were present for a hearing in the family court proceeding. The court found that mother is Julius's mother, and Rasheed and Steve "are the fathers of Julius."
On October 20, 2017, the court awarded Rasheed sole legal custody of Julius, and granted mother and Steve visitation every weekend, with exchanges to take place at a sheriff's station in Pomona. Just three days later, however, mother filed a request for a change of child custody, asserting that Rasheed had violated the court's order by failing to pick up Julius at the Pomona sheriff's station the prior day. The matter was heard on December 13, 2017, at a hearing Rasheed did not attend. The court awarded joint legal custody of Julius to mother and Steve, and sole physical custody of Julius to Steve, with mother to have regular visitation. Rasheed was ordered not to have any visitation with Julius. No reason was provided for the denial of visitation to Rasheed or for the legal or physical custody orders.
Unfortunately, the appellate record does not contain transcripts of any of the family court proceedings. It therefore is difficult to determine the basis for the family court's various orders.
3. 2017 Dependency Proceeding
On December 14, 2017, DCFS filed a third petition alleging that Julius's siblings, Passion M. (born in March 2010) and Paris M. (born in May 2015), were juvenile court dependents because mother had a history of drug abuse and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and mother and Steve had a history of domestic violence. In August 2018, the court returned Passion and Paris to mother and Steve and terminated its jurisdiction.
The detention and jurisdiction reports in the present case say Julius was not named in the December 2017 petition because he was living with Rasheed; however, this statement is inconsistent with the family court minute orders that indicate that Julius was living with mother and Steve by the time DCFS filed the December 2017 petition.
B. The Present Case
In May 2020, the Child Protection Hotline received a report that mother and Steve had abused and neglected Passion, Julius, and Paris. A children's social worker (CSW) interviewed ten-year-old Passion, who reported that mother was verbally abusive, Steve had once pulled a gun on another person who fought with mother, both mother and Steve disciplined Passion and Julius by hitting them with a belt and other objects, mother drank alcohol and smoked marijuana, which she left all over the house, and Steve left his gun accessible to the children, including in the couch and the glove compartment of the car. Passion said she did not feel safe at home, had thoughts of running away, and wished to live with her maternal grandmother.
Eight-year-old Julius told the CSW that Steve had once hit him with an open hand, but he had never been hit with a belt or other object, and he had never seen a gun or other weapon in the home. Passion was sometimes hit with a belt. He denied that mother or Steve smoked marijuana.
Five-year-old Paris said mother and Steve disciplined all three children by hitting them with a belt. She denied being afraid of her parents.
Mother denied hitting the children with objects, but said she sometimes spanked them with an open hand on their bottoms. She said she had been sober for three years and regularly attended AA/NA meetings. She denied any domestic violence at home, and said the gun incident Passion described had occurred several years earlier. Mother admitted having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression, but said neither condition affected her ability to parent the children. She reported that Rasheed was Julius's biological father, but that Steve was Julius's guardian, as well as Paris's biological father.
Steve said he had been sober for 25 years and regularly attended AA meetings. He denied any physical abuse of the children and denied having a gun in the home.
The family's prior CSW reported that Julius had lived with Rasheed during the prior dependency proceeding, but that Steve had obtained legal guardianship of Julius because of Rasheed's alcohol problem.
In May 2020, the juvenile court ordered all three children removed from mother and Steve. They were placed with an aunt, Pamela J.
C. Petition
The juvenile dependency petition, filed June 2, 2020, alleged as follows:
-Mother physically abused Passion, Julius, and Paris by striking them with a belt, and she verbally abused Passion by calling her derogatory names (counts a-1, a-2, a-3, b-1, b-2, b-3, j-1, j-2, j-3);
-Steve physically abused Julius by hitting his chest with a fist (counts a-4, b-4, j-4);
-Steve physically abused Passion by striking her with a belt and his hand (counts a-5, b-5, j-5);
-Mother and Steve created a dangerous home environment by leaving marijuana and a firearm accessible to the children (count b-6);
-Mother had untreated mental and emotional problems, including bipolar disorder and depression, which rendered her unable to care for the children (counts b-7, j-6);
-Mother had a 15-year history of substance abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, and prescription medication, and was a current abuser of marijuana and alcohol; and
-The children's half-sibling, Matthew M., was a prior juvenile court dependent as a result of mother's substance abuse (counts b-8, j-7).
As subsequently amended, the petition also alleged that Rasheed had a history of substance abuse and a criminal arrest for disorderly conduct while under the influence (count b-9).
On June 5, 2020, the juvenile court ordered the children detained from all parents.
D. Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
In July 2020, Passion, Julius, and Paris recanted their reports of physical and verbal abuse by mother and Steve. Passion also recanted her prior statements that mother used marijuana and that Steve left a gun accessible to the children.
The maternal grandmother and maternal aunt both said Passion had disclosed being physically abused by mother and Steve. The aunt said Passion planned to run away from home because she feared mother and Steve.
Mother failed to appear for drug testing on May 27, 2020, and she tested positive for marijuana on June 15, 2020.
DCFS made contact with Rasheed for the first time on July 1, 2020. Rasheed said he had legal custody of Julius, but that mother once had failed to return Julius from a visit, and Julius had lived with mother since that time. According to Rasheed, he had filed for custody of Julius because he observed what appeared to be cigarette burns on the child's body, and Julius had reported that mother hit him with her hand, a belt, and a television cord. Rasheed believed Steve always carried a gun with him, and that mother used marijuana, cocaine, pills, and alcohol. Rasheed had struggled with alcohol in the past, but said he had been sober for five years. He wished to have Julius back in his care.
Both fathers filed parentage statements claiming to be Julius's father. Steve stated he had obtained a judgment of paternity in December 2017, Julius had lived with him between 2017 and 2020, and he had held Julius out as his child to family and friends. Rasheed stated he had signed a parentage declaration immediately after Julius's birth, Julius lived with him from December 2016 to October 2017, and he had told all of his family and friends that Julius was his son.
On July 20, 2020, mother told the CSW that Rasheed had gone to court to get custody of Julius, "but he kept showing up to Court heavily drunk." Mother said the court ordered Rasheed to submit to drug testing, but he never did. Steve gave a similar report, saying that Rasheed lost custody of Julius because he showed up to court drunk.
On July 21, 2020, Rasheed tested positive for marijuana.
The CSW reported that Julius did not respond when asked whether he wanted to live with Rasheed. The CSW expressed concern about the lack of a bond between Julius and Rasheed, as follows: "Julius has not bonded enough with [Rasheed]. Furthermore, on 07/21/20, when [the CSW] interviewed [Rasheed], he reported that he has not seen Julius because [mother] never dropped him off at the police station; however, according to the court documents from Riverside County it appears that father never showed up to pick up Julius as mother then filed to obtain custody due to [Rasheed] not arriving to pick up his son. It appears that [Rasheed] has not been forthcoming about his substance abuse as well as his [family court] case." DCFS recommended that Julius remain in foster care, and Rasheed be offered family reunification services, including a substance abuse program with testing, individual counseling, and parenting education.
At a September 1, 2020 hearing, the juvenile court declared both Rasheed and Steve presumed fathers, explaining it believed there was a family law custody order granting presumed father status to both fathers. Thus, the court said, "I'm bound by that prior ruling, and so, therefore, I will make the finding that [Steve] is presumed also. So we have two presumed fathers."
In fact, while the family court's order states that "Rasheed [D.] and Steve [R.] are the fathers of Julius [M.]," it does not find that either is a "presumed" father. Further, we cannot determine from the record that any court determined that recognizing only two parents "would be detrimental to the child" within the meaning of Family Code section 7612, subdivision (c).
In September 2020, DCFS reported that Rasheed visited Julius consistently, but often ended visits early. The agency recommended that reunification services be offered to all three parents.
On October 23, 2020, Rasheed requested that he be permitted overnight and weekend visits with Julius in his home. DCFS recommended against liberalizing Rasheed's visits, but noted that Rasheed had been cooperative with DCFS and that the relationship between Rasheed and Julius had grown stronger.
E. Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearings
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, attorneys for mother and Steve asked that the allegations against them be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence of current risk of harm, and that the children be returned to their care.
Rasheed's counsel argued that the sole allegation against him (count b-9) should be dismissed for lack of evidence of a nexus between Rasheed's alleged conduct and risk of harm to Julius. Counsel further asked that Julius be placed with Rasheed.
The court asked why the Riverside court had removed Julius from Rasheed; counsel said, "It's unclear. It appears that there was some type of disagreement between [Steve] and [Rasheed]. [Rasheed] reports that he did miss a few court dates due to moving and some other personal issues. The report doesn't give a clear answer as to why the court limited contact with [Rasheed]."
Julius's counsel joined Rasheed's counsel's argument. Counsel noted that the conduct alleged in the petition was remote in time; there was no current evidence of drug use other than a positive test for marijuana at a time when Julius was not living with Rasheed, and the level of marijuana metabolites in Rasheed's blood was very low; Rasheed was able to accept placement of Julius in his home; and there was no evidence that Julius would suffer detriment in Rasheed's home.
Passion's and Paris's attorneys asked the court to sustain most of the allegations of the petition, noting that Passion had reported that mother hit her with a belt and other objects, and mother and Steve had left marijuana and a gun accessible to the children. Passion's counsel asked that Passion be placed with the maternal grandmother, and Paris's counsel asked that Paris remain in foster care.
DCFS urged the court to sustain the allegations as to all three parents. Specifically as to Rasheed, counsel acknowledged that the family law record was incomplete, but urged that mother had indicated that Rasheed had shown up to court drunk and had to be removed by the bailiff on one occasion. Further, there was virtually no evidence to support Rasheed's contention that he was sober, and DCFS had concerns about Rasheed's ability to provide care for Julius while he and his wife were working.
The court sustained all the counts of the petition except the sole count pertaining to Rasheed (count b-9), which it dismissed; it thereafter declared the three children juvenile court dependents. The court further found that the children could not safely be returned to mother and Steve, but that DCFS had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that placing Julius with Rasheed would be detrimental to his safety. The court therefore ordered Julius to be placed with Rasheed under DCFS supervision, that Passion be placed with the maternal grandmother, and that Paris remain in foster care.
The court ordered Rasheed, Steve, and mother each to complete a six-month drug/alcohol program with random/on-demand drug testing, to engage in individual counseling, and to take a parenting class. Rasheed was also ordered to enroll Julius in individual counseling and to participate in conjoint counseling with Julius. Mother and Steve were granted weekly monitored visits with the children, and the siblings were ordered to have weekly in-person or virtual visits.
Steve timely appealed from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders.
F. Post-Appeal Proceedings
During the pendency of this appeal, on October 19, 2021, DCFS removed Julius from Rasheed after the child reported that Rasheed and his wife drank heavily and fought every weekend, and that Rasheed had thrown a chair at him and kicked him out of the house. On October 21, 2021, DCFS filed a subsequent petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 342) alleging that Rasheed physically abused Julius by punching and throwing a chair at him (counts a-1, b-1); Rasheed had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of alcohol and marijuana (count b-2); and Rasheed created a dangerous home environment by allowing his wife, who abused alcohol, to reside in the home and have access to Julius (count b-3).
All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On October 26, 2021, the juvenile court ordered Julius detained from Rasheed and released to Steve under DCFS supervision.
On October 28, 2021, this court asked the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs discussing the effect, if any, of these subsequent events on the issues raised on appeal, and specifically whether the detention from Rasheed and placement with Steve rendered the appeal moot. The court received responses from counsel for Steve, Rasheed, and Julius.
DISCUSSION
Steve contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by dismissing count b-9 of the petition and placing Julius with Rasheed because the allegations of count b-9 were established as a matter of law and the placement with Rasheed separated Julius from his siblings and made visitation with mother and Steve difficult. Steve further contends these issues have not been mooted by subsequent events because the section 342 petition has not yet been adjudicated.
Rasheed contends that Steve forfeited his contention regarding sibling placement by failing to raise it below; Steve lacks standing to challenge the dismissal of the count concerning Rasheed; and the record supports the juvenile court's finding that Julius could safely be placed in Rasheed's home. Julius contends that Steve lacks standing to challenge the dismissal of count b-9 and the placement of Julius with Rasheed; alternatively, he joins Rasheed's arguments that Steve forfeited the sibling placement contention and that the juvenile court appropriately exercised its discretion by placing Julius with Rasheed. Both Rasheed and Julius agree with Steve that the appeal has not been rendered moot.
DCFS declined to file a respondent's brief. In a letter to the court, DCFS stated that it had argued in the juvenile court in support of sustaining count b-9 of the petition and against releasing Julius to Rasheed. DCFS therefore asserted it was not a proper respondent.
We agree with Rasheed and Julius that Steve lacks standing to assert many of his appellate contentions. "Not every party has standing to appeal every appealable order. Although standing to appeal is construed liberally, and doubts are resolved in its favor, only a person aggrieved by a decision may appeal. (E.g., In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 948; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 902 ['Any party aggrieved may appeal. . . .'].) An aggrieved person, for this purpose, is one whose rights or interests are injuriously affected by the decision in an immediate and substantial way, and not as a nominal or remote consequence of the decision. [Citations.] These rules apply with full force to appeals from dependency proceedings." (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231, 236.)
To determine whether Steve is aggrieved by the juvenile court's orders dismissing the b-9 count and placing Julius with Rasheed, "we must therefore precisely identify [his] interest in the matter. All parents, unless and until their parental rights are terminated, have an interest in their children's 'companionship, care, custody and management. . . .'" (In re K.C., supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 236.) However, "the mere fact a parent takes a position on a matter at issue in a juvenile dependency case that affects his or her child does not alone constitute a sufficient reason to establish standing to challenge an adverse ruling on it." (In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 736.) In other words, "[a] parent cannot raise issues . . . which do not affect his or her own rights. (In re Jasmine J. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1802, 1806-1808.)" (In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541, italics added.)
As applied here, these principles dictate that Steve has standing to raise only those issues that impact his own interest in reunifying with Julius. Steve would, therefore, have standing to challenge the juvenile court's true findings regarding the counts that implicate him-but he does not challenge any of those findings. Instead, the only challenge he makes to the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings is to the dismissal of count b-9, which concerned Rasheed's conduct. Because the dismissal of this count in no way affects Steve's ability to reunify with Julius, he lacks standing to challenge it.
Steve's sole contention with regard to standing is that because he is Julius's father, he "has standing to argue his son's best interests." Not so. Although in other contexts a parent may assert his child's best interests, in the dependency context, as we have said, a parent may assert only his or her own interests. (In re K.C., supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 236; In re Jasmine J., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1806-1808; In re Devin M., supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1541.) Because Steve has not identified any way in which dismissal of the b-9 count injured his own interests, he lacks standing to raise the issue on appeal.
For the same reason, Steve lacks standing to challenge the placement order on the grounds that it separated Julius from his siblings. "The interest of siblings or other relatives in their relationship with the minor is separate from that of the parent. Thus, . . . a parent does not have standing to challenge [a juvenile court order] on the ground that the order results in the severance of the minor's relationship with siblings." (In re Devin M., supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1541; see also In re Jasmine J., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1807 [father lacked standing to raise issues regarding the siblings' interest in each other "since his own rights have not been affected thereby"]; In re Nachelle S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1560 [mother lacked standing to raise sibling-visitation; rejecting mother's contention that" 'a parent has standing to raise issues of minors' best interests' "].) Thus, because Steve has no direct interest in the sibling relationship between Julius, Passion, and Paris, he lacks standing to raise that issue on appeal.
The cases Steve cites for the proposition that a parent has standing to assert a sibling relationship are inapposite. In In re L.Y.L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951, the court held that a parent had standing to assert the beneficial-sibling-relationship exception to termination of parental rights because, under the facts of that case, the exception directly affected the parent's interest in his own parental rights. Similarly, in In re Patricia E. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 (disapproved of on other grounds in In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 60), the court held that a parent had standing to urge that it was error to allow county counsel to represent both the welfare department and the child because "independent representation of the daughter's interests impacts upon the father's interest in the parent-child relationship." In the present case, in contrast, Steve has not articulated any way in which failing to preserve the sibling relationship will affect his own interest in his parent-child relationship with Julius.
Steve arguably does have standing to raise his final contention-that the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing Julius with Rasheed because the placement made visitation between Julius and Steve difficult. He urges in this regard that he and Rasheed live 70 miles apart, and thus traveling to visits with Julius may take up to two hours in each direction. This issue has been mooted by the juvenile court subsequent placement of Julius with Steve-plainly, because Julius is now residing with Steve, visitation is no longer at issue. (E.g., Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574 [issue "is considered moot when 'the question addressed was at one time a live issue in the case,' but has been deprived of life 'because of events occurring after the judicial process was initiated.' "].) We therefore need not reach this issue on the merits. (See ibid. ["' "the duty of . . . every . . . judicial tribunal . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or . . . to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it"' "].)
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
We concur: EGERTON, J., KNILL, J. [*]
[*]Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.