Opinion
H045307
07-17-2018
In re G.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.S., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. Nos. 16JU00350, 16JU00351)
I. INTRODUCTION
Ro.S. is the father of G.S. and Re.S., the children at issue in this dependency matter. The father appeals from the juvenile court's order continuing jurisdiction over the children at the six-month family maintenance review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, subdivision (a). The father contends the juvenile court erred by continuing jurisdiction over the children. Alternatively, he challenges certain aspects of his case plan as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.
All further unspecified section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
After the briefing in this case was completed, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency. The Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (the Department) then moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. We agree that there is no effective relief that this court could provide to the father, and therefore we will dismiss the appeal.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Initial Proceedings/Prior Appeal
This court reviewed the initial dependency proceedings in In re G.S. (Oct. 23, 2017, H044576) [nonpub. opn.]. Briefly, on November 9, 2016, the Department filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) [failure to protect] as to each child. The petitions alleged that the father's "level of supervision" placed the children "at substantial risk of serious physical harm." On multiple occasions, the father had failed to supervise the children to the point where they "could have been seriously injured or possibly killed due to a lack of supervision in unsafe conditions." One incident involved one of the children riding a balance bike in traffic. Also, it was determined that there were guns in the home, and the father would not discuss his storage of the guns.
The Department wanted the father to supervise the children better and acknowledged that the father had identified "Free Range Parenting" as his parenting practice. The Department recommended the father be ordered to "develop a network of family, friends, and professionals in order to create a plan to show" that the children would be better supervised.
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on March 22, 2017, the juvenile court took jurisdiction, declared the children dependents, and ordered the children to remain with the father on family maintenance services. The juvenile court ordered the father to cooperate with the social worker to "develop a network of family, friends, and professionals in order to create a plan to show everyone" that he could provide adequate supervision of the children.
The father appealed from the dispositional orders, contending there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding there was a substantial risk that the children would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of the father's failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect them. (See § 300, subd. (b).) The father also challenged, as vague and ambiguous, the dispositional order requiring him to "develop a network" of family, friends, and/or professionals to help him create a plan "to show everyone" that he could provide adequate supervision for the children.
This court found substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings but agreed with the father that certain aspects of the dispositional order were vague. This court modified the "develop a network" order and affirmed the juvenile court's orders as modified.
B. Six-Month Review Report
In a report filed on September 7, 2017, the Department recommended the juvenile court continue family maintenance services. The children were four years old. The father had been "cooperative with the Department" and had been in contact with the social worker. However, the social worker did not believe the father had completed his case plan.
In April 2017, the social worker had gone to a park with the father and the children, and the children had been out of the father's sight at some point. In May 2017, someone had reported that the father had left the children unattended at a farmer's market, but the father said that the children had been with him or in the play area and that he was able to see them at all times.
In July 2017, the father signed consent forms so the children could participate in a mental health assessment, but he then declined to have the children participate.
Initially, the father had not been participating in counseling. He told the social worker he did not think counseling would work, but he also indicated he was willing to try to find a counselor. In May 2017, he attended several sessions at the Parents Center. He also attended sessions in June 2017. The therapist described the father as "open to suggestions" regarding his parenting and agreeing that the children needed adequate supervision.
In August 2017, the father was informed that the social worker was recommending that family maintenance services continue, which led him to end his therapy sessions. The father believed he had completed his case plan, although the therapist believed he had "not completed his therapeutic goals" regarding safety and the children's socialization.
The social worker did not believe the father had completed "his case plan objective of creating a support network with family and friends to ensure the safety of his children in the community." The father had not participated in a support network meeting until August 14, 2017, and he had not responded to a social worker's request for information about how the support network would be sustained.
The father had been storing his firearms in accordance with state and local laws.
In an update memo filed on October 30, 2017, the Department reported on a September 22, 2017 home visit in which the father had insisted on video recording the social worker. The social worker left without verifying that the father's guns were stored properly.
The update memo also noted that the father had not re-engaged in therapy. The social worker acknowledged that the father had "made progress" toward his case plan goals but noted that the father still had not answered her questions about what he had learned in counseling or about his support network.
C. The Father's Brief
The father filed a brief in advance of the six-month review hearing. He requested the juvenile court terminate jurisdiction.
The father asserted he had "congregated a network of folks" and had met with the network to discuss safety. He asserted that there had been "no recurrences of unsafe events," showing that the children were no longer in danger.
Regarding therapy, the father "questioned what tangible effect personal talk therapy . . . could have on safe parenting." The father also pointed out that the therapist's report was not negative or critical.
The father included a declaration, in which he asserted, "I have completed my case plan." He noted that he had a full-time nanny and that the children had been healthy and happy. He indicated he believed one of the reports to the Department was driven by "prejudices" and that another report was made by someone who believed it was his "job to generate as many CPS [Child Protective Services] referrals as possible." He asserted that none of the social workers had discussed "risk" with him and indicated he could not understand why the Department continued to investigate "dubious" referrals. He asserted that the Department's primary concern appeared to be inducing him to "conform to social norms." However, he also emphasized that he took "full responsibility" for his behavior.
D. Six-Month Review Hearing
A contested six-month review hearing was held on November 6, 2017. The "post dispo" social worker testified that the Department viewed the primary problem in this case as the father's failure to supervise the children "in the community." The Department was also concerned about the father's storage of his firearms, although the social worker had never observed the firearms stored improperly.
The father's case plan included seeing a counselor to help him "implement safer strategies" for parenting. The father had taught the children to identify their names, their nanny's phone number, and their address. The father had also participated in a safety planning meeting with two friends, the children's court appointed special advocates (CASA's), and the social worker.
The social worker described the children as "exceptional," explaining that they were "very bright," "[v]ery articulate," and "very advanced for their age." They were also "very affectionate" with the father.
The social worker expressed concern about the incident in which the children had been out of the father's sight and about the fact that the father had not followed through on getting a mental health assessment for the children. The social worker was also concerned because the father had a newborn baby, and taking care of the baby might take away some of the energy he would put into supervising the children. However, the social worker acknowledged that she was unaware of any incidents involving lack of supervision related to the baby. She also acknowledged she had no specific concerns about the children's mental health.
The juvenile court found that the father had participated and made "some progress" in his case plan but that there was "a continued need" for him to "develop his parenting skills regarding safety and insuring that the children are socializing." The juvenile court found it concerning that the father had "unilaterally decided to discontinue his therapy" and not followed through with a mental health assessment. The juvenile court continued the children as dependents and ordered another six months of family maintenance services, adopting the Department's recommended case plan.
The service objectives in the father's case plan were: (1) "Develop positive support systems with friends and family," (2) "Pay attention to and monitor your children's health, safety, and well-being," (3) "Show that you know age appropriate behavior for your children," and (4) "Obtain and maintain a suitable residence for yourself and your children free from safety hazards in and around the home."
The case plan identified the father's responsibilities as including: "Participate in therapy with a Department approved provider . . . . You will need to consistently participate in therapy, address any issues identified by either you or the therapist related to how you interact, parent and supervise your children. You will need to follow any and all recommendations made by the therapist to change the behavior in the future."
The case plan specified that the father's success would be measured by five factors: (1) "Consistently attending therapy appointments," (2) "Actively participating in therapy," (3) "Taking the recommendations made by the therapists about how to safely supervise your children and demonstrating those techniques during monitored interactions with your child[ren]," (4) "[B]eing able to identify to the social worker what you have learned regarding better ways of supervising your children," and (5) "Demonstrating an increased knowledge of age appropriate disciplinary methods and child development as indicated by appropriately parenting you[r] child[ren] under observed conditions."
The juvenile court set the 12-month family maintenance review hearing for May 3, 2018.
On December 4, 2017, the father filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court's orders at the six-month family maintenance review hearing.
E. Dismissal of Dependency
On April 3, 2018, the Department filed a 12-month review report recommending that the juvenile court dismiss the dependency. The father had been cooperative with the Department. He had remained in contact with the social worker. He had "complet[ed] the service objectives of his case plan by successfully engaging and completing the creation and utilization of a support network." He had been engaged with his children, who had been assessed as meeting developmental expectations. He had been compliant with the laws regarding storage of his guns. He had demonstrated that he would safely supervise the children, and there had been no new incidents involving danger to the children. Overall, the father had "successfully mitigated the concerns that led to this dependency case." The Department recommended the father be given sole legal and physical custody of the children.
We take judicial notice of documents in the juvenile court file that were filed after the six-month review hearing. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
On April 20, 2018, the children's CASA's filed reports in which they both indicated they supported the Department's recommendation to dismiss the dependency.
On May 3, 2018, the juvenile court adopted the Department's recommendations and dismissed the dependency, finding that the children were "no longer in need of supervision" by the juvenile court since they were "no longer at substantial risk for abuse or neglect."
The father notified this court of the dismissal by letter dated May 7, 2018. The Department then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The father filed opposition to the motion.
The Department also moved to augment the record with the juvenile court's order dismissing the appeal. As noted above, we have taken judicial notice of that order. (See fn. 2, ante.) The Department's motion to augment is denied.
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, the father contends the juvenile court erred by continuing jurisdiction over the children. Alternatively, he challenges certain aspects of his case plan as vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.
In its motion to dismiss the appeal, the Department argues "that the questions presented [i]n this appeal have become moot in that the relief requested is no longer available." The father opposes dismissal of his appeal.
As a general rule, it is a court's 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.' " ' " (In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58.) Thus, "[a]n appellate court will dismiss an appeal when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief." (Id. at pp. 58-59.) Generally, termination of juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous order in the dependency proceedings moot (In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488) because, even if the appellate court were to find reversible error, it could afford no direct relief (In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 330).
The father initially argued that dismissal would be improper because, although no party objected to the May 3, 2018 dismissal order, there was still time for a party to appeal from that order. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1) [in juvenile cases, "a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed"].) However, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal has now passed, and no notice of appeal has been filed.
A notice of appeal would need to have been filed within 60 days of "the making of" the May 3, 2018 order. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1).) Thus, the deadline was July 2, 2018. --------
The father also argues that dismissal should not be ordered because the Department could seek reimbursement of the children's attorney fees pursuant to section 903.1. We decline to disregard the mootness doctrine based on speculation about what the Department might do.
The father's third argument is that the case is fully briefed and it would be more "expeditious" to reach the merits of his claims than to find it moot. The case the father relies on, In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544 (Joshua C.), does not support his claim. In that case, the juvenile court awarded custody to the mother and restricted the father's visitation when it dismissed the dependency. Since the father would be collaterally estopped from challenging those orders in family court, judicial review of those orders and the underlying jurisdictional findings could afford the father relief. (Id. at p. 1548.) No similar orders were entered in this case: the father was awarded sole physical and legal custody of the children.
The father's fourth argument is a quote from Joshua C., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1548: "[R]efusal to address such jurisdictional errors on appeal by declaring the case moot has the undesirable result of insulating erroneous or arbitrary rulings from review." But as explained above, Joshua C. is distinguishable because here there are no continuing orders that the father could conceivably want to challenge.
The father's fifth argument is that he "may also suffer adverse consequences should the Department again seek jurisdiction." We are well aware "that parents of young children face the prospect of possible future juvenile court intervention" and that there is a potential that the juvenile court's findings in this matter "could have negative consequences" for the father in later proceedings. (In re N.S., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 62-63.) Nevertheless, we are not convinced "that any ruling we could issue here would have any practical effect on future dependency proceedings." (Id. at p. 63.)
Finally, the father argues that this court should exercise its discretion to address the claims he raises. He points out that courts have exercised such discretion when cases raise issues of public importance that might otherwise escape review. (See, e.g., In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1414 [addressing technically moot issue due to importance of distinguishing between standards applicable to placement of children].) The father asserts that there is "little case law regarding vague and overly broad service conditions in dependency cases." However, the conditions challenged in this case were very specific to the father's particular circumstances, and we do not believe that resolution of his specific claims would be helpful to other cases.
IV. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
ELIA, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
MIHARA, J.