Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children v. Sheree J. (In re A.W.)
| Decision Date | 14 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | B268189 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re A.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHEREE J., Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CK84800)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Julie Fox Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed.
Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
Linda S. Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiffs and Respondents A. W. and Jordyn C.
____________________
Sheree J. appeals the juvenile court's order granting the petition of her grandchildren, A.W. and Jordyn C., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,1 to remove Sheree as their legal guardian after Sheree was convicted of drunk driving and child endangerment. Sheree contends the court was required to hold a hearing pursuant to section 387 and find she posed a danger to her grandchildren before it could terminate her guardianship and remove the children from her custody. She also contends, if no such hearing was statutorily required in these circumstances, she was treated as a dependency guardian differently from a parent in violation of her right to equal protection. Finally, Sheree asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that removing her as legal guardian was in the children's best interest. We affirm.
In October 2010 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300 alleging, among other things, Rochelle B., mother of then four-year-old A.W. and eight-month-old Jordyn, had engaged in a violent altercation with their presumed father, Renardo C., that had endangered the children and put them at acontinuing and substantial risk of harm. The court sustained that allegation as to Renardo, found Rochelle nonoffending, declared A.W. and Jordyn dependent children of the court and released them to Rochelle's sole custody with family maintenance services. The court ordered reunification services and monitored visitation for Renardo.
In March 2011 the Department filed a section 387 petition to remove the children from Rochelle's custody after Rochelle had left them alone with Renardo in violation of the court's orders. The court sustained the new allegation, removed the children from Rochelle and ultimately placed them with Sheree, their maternal grandmother.
In December 2011 at the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)), the court terminated reunification services for both parents and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26). At the July 31, 2012 selection and implementation hearing, the court appointed Sheree legal guardian of A.W. and Jordyn, issued letters of guardianship to that effect and terminated jurisdiction with financial assistance to Sheree under the Kin-GAP program.
On July 3, 2014 Sheree drove dangerously and erratically while A.W., Jordyn and Sheree's two minor children, A.B. and I.B., were in the car. The children told social workers Sheree had been drinking before she got in the car and while she had been driving and had acted "crazy": She drove at a high rate of speed, swerved in and out of lanes and nearly crashed the car. They were frightened. After stopping the car, Sheree was arrested and taken into custody. Immediately following Sheree's arrest,Sheree's adult son took all four children to live with Sheree's adult daughter, Lashanae B.
On July 21, 2015 Sheree pleaded no contest to misdemeanor counts of driving a vehicle while having a blood alcohol level equal to or greater than .08 percent (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) and child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)). Sheree was placed on summary probation for 48 months with terms and conditions that included serving 90 days in county jail and completing a one-year alcohol abuse program and 52-week parenting program.
On July 27, 2015 the Department filed two dependency petitions based on Sheree's criminal conduct: (1) A supplemental petition pursuant to section 387, alleging Sheree's actions had put both A.W. and Jordyn at substantial risk of serious physical harm and (2) a section 300 petition alleging the same risk of harm as to Sheree's two children. Following detention hearings on both petitions, A.W., Jordyn, I.B. and A.B. were detained from Sheree and placed with Lashanae.
On October 6, 2015 the court held the jurisdiction hearing for Sheree's children. The Department asserted, as it had in its jurisdiction/disposition report, that I.B. and A.B. were not safe in Sheree's custody and recommended their removal from Sheree with reunification services. I.B. and A.B. agreed. In addition, they requested the court amend the petition according to proof and sustain an allegation addressing Sheree's history of alcohol abuse, citing Lashanae's statements to social workers that she hoped this incident would make Sheree finally obtain the help she needed to address her long-term alcohol abuse problem.(Lashanae had also told social workers Sheree had taken good care of the children and, to her knowledge, had not at any other time driven while intoxicated.)
Sheree denied any history of alcohol abuse and insisted the drunk-driving incident was a one-time occurrence for which she felt great remorse. She accepted responsibility for her behavior and intended to do whatever was necessary so that her children (and grandchildren) could be returned to her. Sheree also presented evidence she had been diligent in attending her court-ordered alcohol abuse and parenting programs and had consistently tested negative for alcohol.
The court dismissed the section 300 petition, finding the Department had failed to demonstrate Sheree posed a current risk to her children. Although the court found Sheree's conduct and "poor judgment" had certainly endangered I.B. and A.B., it credited Sheree's statements that she now understood the danger her drunk driving had posed to her children and would not repeat the behavior. The court also found Lashanae's statement to social workers insufficient evidence that Sheree had a history of abusing alcohol.
On October 6, 2015, immediately following the jurisdiction hearing for Sheree's children and before the hearing on the Department's section 387 petition scheduled to be adjudicated the same day, A.W. and Jordyn filed a "walk on" section 388 petition to modify the juvenile court's 2012 order appointing Sheree their legal guardian. A.W. and Jordyn argued circumstances had changed—Sheree's criminal behavior had put their safety at risk—and they remained afraid to be in her custody. Thechildren alleged they were thriving in Lashanae's care and wished to remove Sheree as their guardian and make Lashanae, their maternal aunt, their new legal guardian. Lashanae informed social workers she would consent to be the legal guardian.
The court initially stated it would consider the Department's section 387 petition before addressing A.W. and Jordyn's section 388 petition. However, after an off-the-record colloquy with all counsel, the court, without objection, heard the children's section 388 petition first. Following argument, the court agreed the children had shown significant changed circumstances—Sheree's dangerous behavior, her criminal conviction and sentence of probation with conditions and the children's subsequent placement with Lashanae—and concluded it was in their best interest that Sheree be removed as guardian. The court rejected Sheree's argument that it could not remove her as guardian absent a finding that she posed a current danger: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial