Opinion
B201611
4-22-2008
In re JAMES M., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent, v. DAWN B., Appellant.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Dawn B. and James M. have children together. These parents were both ordered to undergo testing for drugs by the juvenile court. Dawn B. appeals on the ground that James M.s mother is involved in the drug testing of James M. But Dawn B. lacks standing to raise this issue because it does not adversely affect her interest in reuniting with her children. We must dismiss her appeal.
I
Unless otherwise noted, we refer to Dawn B. as mother and James M. as father. At the time of the events in this case, mother had five children: twins, Jacob and Mariah B., then 15 years old; Nicole B., then 12 years old; and, twins James and Destiny M., then four years old. James M. is the father of the younger set of twins, James and Destiny M., and the subject of this appeal.
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has been extensively involved with mothers children. DCFS had received nine previous referrals about them. Two of the referrals required juvenile court intervention. One case concerned her then 15-year-old twins, Jacob and Mariah B. This case was still open at the time of the incident in this case. DCFS had already removed these older twins, Jacob and Mariah B., from mothers custody and placed them with their maternal grandmother. The middle child, Nicole B., lived at least half the time with her father, Eddie D.
In February 2007, the court terminated an earlier dependency case for the three youngest children. The court ordered the younger twins, James and Destiny M., returned home to mother and their father, James M.
Mother and father had an on-again, off-again relationship for years. In late 2006, they reconciled and resumed living together in fathers apartment. Their reconciliation did not last: father asked mother to move out in April 2007.
Generally, mother watched the children during the day and father watched the children at night. On April 27, 2007, mother brought James and Destiny to fathers apartment. Mother and father began arguing. Mother asked father if he still loved her and father said no. Mother challenged father to tear up a photograph of them if he really no longer loved her. Father did it. Mother yelled and cursed at father. The parents struck each other and mother pushed father over a couch. James and Destiny M. watched the combat and it scared them.
Fathers roommate called 911. Mother left with the children before police arrived. The officers took a report. They also notified DCFS of the parents altercation in front of the children.
A social worker interviewed mother, who claimed the argument started over fathers use of marijuana in front of the children. Then 12-year-old Nicole told the social worker father smoked marijuana, but never became violent when he did so. Nicole said she once saw marijuana in fathers pocket. She said fathers lunch cooler also smelled of marijuana.
Father had a long history of arrests and convictions related to drugs. Father denied currently using drugs. He said the last time he used drugs was in 2003 when he smoked some marijuana, and that he stopped because he feared losing his job. Father was a truck driver and said his employer could require drug testing at any time.
Mother also had a criminal history. Her crimes were primarily for theft crimes and for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
A DCFS case worker took James and Destiny M. into protective custody and temporarily placed them with their maternal grandmother and older half siblings, Jacob and Mariah B. The middle child Nicole remained placed with her father. DCFS then filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition concerning James and Destiny M. and Nicole B. alleging, as relevant here, mother and father had a history of domestic violence that put the children at risk of harm. The petition also alleged that mother had a history of substance abuse and was currently abusing alcohol. Further it alleged that father also had a history of substance abuse and was currently using alcohol and illegal drugs in front of the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) DCFS also filed a supplemental petition concerning the older set of twins, Jacob and Mariah B. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387.)
The court found a prima facie case for detention. The court continued the childrens current placements, but ordered investigations of the paternal grandmother and mothers shelter as alternative potential placements for James and Destiny M. The court ordered monitored visits for mother and father. It also directed DCFS to provide mother and father with referrals for domestic violence and individual counseling. Finally, the court ordered both mother and father to undergo weekly random drug testing.
Fathers mother is relevant to this case in several ways. First, she turned out to be unsuitable as a potential caregiver. She had an extensive and recent criminal history for theft crimes. Her convictions included convictions for second degree burglary, an apparently non-exemptible offense. She was then on parole. She was attending college classes in order to obtain a certificate in drug and alcohol abuse studies. We shall return to fathers mother shortly.
Placing the children was hard. Mother Dawn B.s current shelter was unsuitable for the two youngest children because it provided housing only for a short time. The court removed James and Destiny M. from the maternal grandmother and placed them with foster parents with whom they had previously lived.
Mother and father agreed to mediate jurisdiction and disposition issues concerning James and Destiny M. The parties reached a settlement on all issues, with one exception: father requested a trial on the allegation he was currently using alcohol and drugs.
Mother executed a written waiver of rights form agreeing to forego her right to a trial of the petitions allegations. Father deferred filing a waiver of rights form pending trial of the reserved issue on his alleged current drug use. DCFS informed the court it would submit a supplemental report for the next court date to include information regarding recent and random drug tests from father.
The court declared the children dependents of the juvenile court and ordered them removed from their parents custody. The court set July 19, 2007 as the hearing date to adjudicate the issue of fathers current drug use and for further disposition.
In its supplemental report, DCFS informed the court father was participating in random drug testing at The Villages at Cabrillo/United States Veterans Initiative. Three samples he gave in May and June 2007 tested negative for alcohol and drugs. The laboratory, however, reported these samples had very high levels of creatinine. Apparently, high levels of creatinine suggest the possibility of a diluted sample. DCFS included copies of the laboratorys analyses of fathers drug tests. The first sample was collected by "Billy." The next two samples were collected by "W. Patt."
DCFS contacted the program administrator at The Villages at Cabrillo/United States Veterans Initiative. The administrator confirmed father was submitting to random drug tests. The administrator also explained testing protocols at the facility. She said a resident assistant is in the room when a urine specimen is collected. The resident assistant seals the specimen, labels it, and sends it to the laboratory. The program administrator confirmed a persons case manager has nothing to do with the facilitys random testing and does not have access to test results. DCFS inquired because the person at the facility who faxed fathers test results to DCFS apparently had the same name as fathers mother.
At the July 19, 2007 hearing, the court dismissed the allegation father was currently using drugs and alcohol at DCFSs recommendation. Father executed a written waiver of rights form and submitted to the courts jurisdiction. Mother objected. She told the court she was "quite upset that a family member is the case manager for his drug testing." Mother said it gave the appearance of impropriety. The court told mother she had "enough to worry about on her own." The court stated, "[l]et the social worker worry about the integrity of the drug testing."
The court then issued further orders. Among others, the court directed mother and father to submit to eight random drug tests. The court added that, if either parent missed a test or tested positive, then the offending parent was to complete a substance abuse program with random testing.
Mother filed a notice of appeal. DCFS did not. Father did not. The children also do not appeal from the courts orders.
II
Mother argues the duty of a juvenile court is to order a reunification plan that addresses the issues that brought the children into the dependency system. (Citing In re Kristin W. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 234, 255 [it is the courts duty to formulate an adequate reunification plan].) Mother claims the courts disposition order fails because it does not ensure father will address his substance abuse issues. She says the courts order allows father to monkey with his drug testing: his mother, as his case manager, has access to his drug tests and thus the ability to dilute his samples and skew the results. By ignoring her complaint, mother contends, the court abused its discretion because it did not adequately consider the childrens best interests.
Mother lacks standing to complain about fathers drug testing. Mothers "ability to appeal does not confer standing to assert issues when [she] is not aggrieved by the order from which the appeal is taken." (In re D.S. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 671, 673-674.) 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.)
Mothers legitimate interest in the dependency proceeding is to reunify with her children. The court orders about fathers case plan for reunification with James and Destiny M. do not adversely affect that interest. Mother and father have a stormy relationship, but that is no license for mother to argue the juvenile court was soft on father.
Mothers appeal does implicate valid interests, but those interests validly belong to others. In reality, mother is advancing Jamess and Destinys interests in reunifying with a drug-free father, as well as DCFSs interest in the integrity of fathers drug test results. But James, Destiny, and DCFS all had lawyers in the juvenile court. None of these other parties or their lawyers shared mothers concern. Mother "cannot urge errors which affect only another party who does not appeal." (In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261.) It is not enough for mother to simply assert the minors best interest as a basis for standing. (In re Nachelle S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1562.) Mothers own interest in reunifying with her children is not, as she alleges, so intertwined with these interests as to give her standing. (Citing In re Patricia E. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [concerning the need for independent counsel to represent minors in dependency proceedings to avoid potential conflicts of interest], disapproved in In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45.)
Because mother is not personally aggrieved by the order she challenges, this court is without jurisdiction to consider her claim. (In re D.S., supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 674 ["Without a showing that a parents personal rights are affected by a ruling, the parent does not establish standing."].)
III
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.