L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Lavont G. (In re Lavont G.)
| Decision Date | 30 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | B301092 |
| Parties | In re LAVONT G., Jr., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAVONT G., Sr., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP07700A-C)
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Acting Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
* * * * * *
Lavont G., Sr. (father) appeals the juvenile court's exertion of dependency jurisdiction over his three teenage boys due to his use of inappropriate physical discipline. Father argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the court's jurisdictional findings and its removal of the boys from his custody. The court's subsequent termination of jurisdiction and issuance of an un-appealed exit order renders father's challenge to the removal order moot. Although the juvenile court's exercise of dependency jurisdiction presents a close question on which reasonable courts might disagree, substantial evidence supports the court's jurisdictional findings. Accordingly, we affirm the court's jurisdictional orders.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Father and Canicha P. (mother) have three boys: Lavont G., Jr. (Junior), who was born in 2006; and twins Sho.G. and Sha.G., who were born in 2008. Mother and father split up acrimoniously and have since been engaged in an "ongoing . . . battle" over custody of the boys.
In 2014, a family court awarded father sole physical custody of the boys. Father takes an authoritarian approach to raising the boys and is, in his own words, a strict disciplinarian.Prior to 2018, at least one social worker advised father not to use excessive discipline with the boys.
In October 2018, Junior reported to a school counselor and to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) that father had "punche[d]" him in the stomach with a closed fist, had "side punched" him in the chest "a couple of times," and had slapped him on the back of the head with an open palm. Junior explained that these incidents occurred when father was "irritated or annoyed" with Junior and were typically accompanied by yelling and by father calling him "stupid," an "idiot," or a "moron." Junior said the most recent such incident was on October 4, 2018. When questioned by the Department, Sha.G. and Sho.G. also reported that father had hit them in the stomach, but not recently. Sho.G. reported that father had hit him on the back of the head as well. All three boys reported that father used to spank them with a shoe or belt. In a subsequent interview, Sho.G added that father had punched him in the stomach, thrown him onto the floor, and put him up against a wall.
In November 2018, Junior accidentally threw out a pair of shoes. Angry, father called him "stupid," grabbed a belt, and marched him downstairs. Father ultimately put the belt away without using it, but made Junior climb into a dumpster to retrieve the shoes.
In conversations with Department personnel and in his testimony before the juvenile court, father admitted smacking Junior on the back of the head with an open palm in the summer of 2018 and in early October 2018, admitted yelling at the boys, and admitted grabbing the boys by their shirts and pulling them close to him. He also admitted spanking the boys with his hand,a belt, and a shoe, but said he stopped doing so years ago except for spanking Sha.G. in March 2018 for acting out. Father denied punching the boys in the stomach and denied throwing objects when angry.
On December 4, 2018, the Department filed a petition. In February 2019, it filed an amended petition. In pertinent part, the amended petition alleged that father had "physically abused" (1) Junior by striking him on the head with an open palm on October 4, 2018, and by punching him in the stomach and spanking him with a belt and shoe; (2) Sho.G. by "hitting [his] stomach," by "pushing [him] to the floor," by "pinn[ing] [him] against a wall," and by spanking him with a belt and a shoe, and (3) Sha.G. by "punching [his] stomach" and by spanking him with a belt and a shoe. The petition further alleged that father's physical abuse had "caused [each] child unreasonable pain and suffering" and "endanger[ed] [each] child's physical health and safety and place[d] [each child] . . . at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, [and] physical abuse . . ." The petition also alleged that mother was "unable to protect [each] child" from father's physical abuse. Based on these allegations, the petition alleged that dependency jurisdiction was appropriate under subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (c), and (j) of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1
Mother pled no contest to the allegations that she had failed to protect the boys from father's physical abuse.
Father contested the allegations. The juvenile court held the jurisdictional hearing over two days in April 2019. Father testified as noted above, and the court found him to be "credible," "forthright" and "honest." The court also noted that the boys were "great" and that, in that sense, father had done a "good job" raising them, particularly in light of the "very high conflict parenting situation" between father and mother. The court concluded that the boys had not been "physically abused," but concluded that the evidence—including father's own testimony and admissions—demonstrated "inappropriate physical discipline" that warranted the exercise of dependency jurisdiction. Father was "well intentioned," the court found, but the level of discipline was excessive, even if it did not rise to the level of physical abuse. As a consequence, the court interlineated the allegations to replace "physical abuse" with "inappropriate physical discipline"; sustained those allegations under subdivision (b)(1); and dismissed the allegations under subdivisions (a), (c), and (j). The court then ordered an expert evaluation under Evidence Code section 730.
The juvenile court held the dispositional hearing in late September 2019. The court-appointed expert testified, and recommended that father learn about additional "parenting tools" and attend anger management classes.
In light of the five-month delay between the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, the court remarked that father had not inflicted any "inappropriate physical discipline" "recently."The court added that it "ha[d] some faith that that's not going to happen anymore." The court nevertheless removed the children from father's custody and placed them with mother. The court ordered father to complete a developmentally appropriate high conflict parenting class and an anger management class, and to participate in conjoint counseling with the boys. The court ordered that father could have unmonitored day visits with the boys, but that unmonitored overnight and weekend visits would not be permitted until father enrolled in the ordered programs.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal.
On December 10, 2019, the juvenile court terminated its order placing the children with mother, and ordered the children placed in the home of parents.
On February 7, 2020, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and issued an exit order granting the parents joint legal and physical custody, but placing the children primarily with father. Father has not appealed the exit order.
DISCUSSION
Father argues that the juvenile court's orders exerting dependency jurisdiction and removing the boys from his custody are invalid. Father's challenge to the removal order is moot because it has been superseded by the February 2020 exit order and father has not appealed that exit order. (In re Michelle M. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 326, 329-330; accord, In re Raymond G. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 964, 967.) However, his challenge to the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings is still justiciable: Because those findings are what make father an "offending" rather than a non-"offending" parent, they continue to have a detrimental effectnotwithstanding the termination of dependency jurisdiction and the existence of jurisdiction premised solely on mother's no-contest plea to the allegations. (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763; In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452; see generally In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488 [].)
Father argues that the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings are not supported by sufficient evidence. The sole basis for dependency jurisdiction in this case, subdivision (b)(1) of section 300, requires proof, in pertinent part, that "[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm . . ., as a result of the failure or inability of his . . . parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect [him]." (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) Where, as here, the parent's alleged failure to supervise arises from his resort to inappropriate physical discipline, jurisdiction turns on proof that (1) the parent engaged in inappropriate physical discipline that (2) gives rise to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial