L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. T.M. (In re O.M.-P.)

• Decision Date: 31 January 2022
• Docket Number: B311185
• Parties: In re O.M.-P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. T.M., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

In re O.M.-P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
T.M., Defendant and Appellant.

B311185

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

January 31, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 20LJJP00259D-F, Robin R. Kesler, Judge Pro Tempore. Dismissed.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BAKER, J.

1

T.M. (Father) and V.P. (Mother) have three children together: O.M.-P., S.M.-P., and E.M.-P. The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over the children after finding the parents engaged in violent altercations in the minors' presence and Father sexually abused one of Mother's children from another relationship by sending the child sexually explicit videos of Mother. Father noticed an appeal to challenge the sexual abuse jurisdiction finding and the disposition order requiring him to participate in sexual abuse counseling. While Father's appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over the children with an order giving Mother sole legal and physical custody. We consider whether the unchallenged order terminating jurisdiction renders Father's appeal of the jurisdiction finding and disposition order moot.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Dependency Investigation

In addition to O.M.-P. (born in 2014), S.M.-P. (born in 2016), and E.M.-P. (born in 2019), Mother has three older minor children from previous relationships, including M.L.-P. (born in 2007). In early 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received information that Father physically abused Mother and that Mother and some of the children were sleeping in a car.

Mother told a Department social worker that she and the three youngest children lived with Father for a few months at the end of 2019. Mother and Father were not in a relationship at the time, and she moved into the home on the understanding that Father would be moving out. (A 10-year criminal protective order, issued in 2016, prohibited Father from having contact with

2

Mother.) Father remained in the home, however, and their frequent arguments sometimes escalated to physical violence. Father denied living with Mother and the children in 2019 and he also denied any ongoing domestic violence.

The Department filed a dependency petition alleging all six children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm because, among other things, Mother and Father have a history of engaging in violent altercations in their presence, one of their arguments led to Mother and the three youngest children spending the night in a vehicle, and Father's contact with Mother constituted a violation of a criminal protective order. At an initial hearing on the petition, the juvenile court ordered all six children detained from Mother, ordered Father's three children detained from Father, and ordered Mother's three older children released to their fathers.

During the Department's ensuing investigation of the minors' welfare, Mother said Father started abusing her by grabbing her arms after S.M.-P. was born, but he eventually started punching her. O.M.-P. and S.M.-P. corroborated Mother's account of having suffered physical abuse at the hands of Father.

Over the next several months, Mother and others close to her reported threats and harassment by Father. Father also sent sexually explicit photos and videos of Mother to her family and others. He posted an "intimate" video of Mother on Instagram that he recorded without her knowledge. He sent a video of Mother and Father having sex to Mother, her adult son, the children's caregiver, and the father of one of Mother's older children. The children's caregiver reported Father also sent a "revenge porn" "sex video" of Mother to Mother's 15-year-old niece.

3

Father did not stop there. He also sent Mother's oldest minor son, M.L.-P., sexually explicit videos of Mother along with crass and explicit text messages including the following (these are not the most explicit): "You'll hear ur mom moaning so good"; "You liked the way your mom sounds"; and "Look at your hoe ass mom she's not good that's why she lost her kids." Father also sent M.L.-P. several messages referring to M.L.-P. and his father as "snitches." M.L.-P. blocked messages from Father's phone number, but Father continued to send him messages from different numbers. Around the same time, Mother received text messages from Father threatening that if she did not agree to meet with him, M.L.-P. would "pay for it tomorrow."

After learning of this post-petition conduct by Father, the Department filed an amended dependency petition. The previously alleged count under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)^[1] was amended to reference Father's threats against M.L.-P. The petition also included a new count under section 300, subdivision (d), alleging Father sexually abused M.L.-P. by sending him "at least three explicit sexual videos . . . where [Father] and [M]other were engaged in sexual intercourse."

B. Adjudication and Disposition

The juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in March 2021. Mother pled no contest to the section 300, subdivision (b)(1) count. Father's attorney contended the section 300, subdivision (d)(1) count should be dismissed because, among other things, "there is no risk of physical sexual

4

abuse because there is no sexual intent by [Father]. If [Father] did indeed send these messages to the child, he did not send them in order to groom the child for sexual abuse. It's clear that these messages were sent [with] the intent to harass and taunt, not to sexually abuse." Counsel for Father's children agreed with Father's attorney's assessment that Father's text...