Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children v. West (In re West)

• Decision Date: 28 July 2017
• Docket Number: B277764
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re KINGSTON W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROOSEVELT W. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

In re KINGSTON W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENAND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROOSEVELT W. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

B277764

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

July 28, 2017

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CK89770)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.

Roosevelt W., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant Roosevelt W.

K.W., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant K.W. Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Appellants Roosevelt W. (Father) and K.W. (Mother), each self-represented, appeal the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights over their children Kingston and "Ky." For the reasons discussed, we affirm the court's order, concluding the court did not err in finding that the children were adoptable and that there was no compelling reason to believe termination of parental rights would be detrimental to them.

Appellants seek to raise a number of other issues, including subject matter and personal jurisdiction and right to self-representation. The issues are not properly briefed with citation to relevant legal authority. Nonetheless, we address them and conclude the court had jurisdiction, and did not abuse its discretion in disallowing appellants to represent themselves. Finally, appellants seek review of their unsuccessful attempts to disqualify the presiding judicial officer and of the order terminating reunification services with respect to a third child ("Kim"). Such orders are not reviewable at this time; review should have beensought by way of timely petition for extraordinary writ. Accordingly, we may not consider them.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Prior Proceedings and Appeals

1. Kingston

The family came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in July 2011, when their oldest child, Kingston, was almost four.¹ Mother had a mental breakdown, claiming she was God, that God was talking to her, and that the police officers and medical personnel who came to evaluate her were devils. Mother was placed on a psychiatric hold, and Kingston was left in the care of his maternal grandparents. A DCFS caseworker interviewed Mother in the hospital, where she was diagnosed with a form of schizophrenia. When Mother was released in August 2011, she fled with Kingston to Alabama, where Father lived. Contacted by the caseworker, Father agreed Mother was behaving bizarrely, and stated he did not want Mother caring for Kingston or Kingston exposed to her behavior.² In September, he returned the boy to his maternal grandparents in California and sent a letter to thecaseworker consenting to Kingston's being placed with the grandparents. The dependency petition (Welfare & Ins. Code, § 300) was filed September 21, 2011.³ Notice was sent to Mother and Father in Alabama. Father was represented by counsel at the detention and jurisdictional hearings.⁴

At the original jurisdictional hearing, the court found that Mother displayed mental and emotional problems which rendered her incapable of providing regular care for Kingston. Her reunification plan required her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, participate in counseling and take all prescribed psychotropic medication. Father was deemed non-offending. In February 2012, Mother returned to California. In March, Father, still in Alabama, filed a section 388 petition seeking custody of Kingston. Mother immediately filed a section 388 petition of her own, alleging that while they were in Alabama, Father had threatened her with a knife, choked her until she blacked out, tied her to a chair, forced her to take medication, raped her and regularly beaten her.⁵ Mother also admitted throwing boiling wateron Father, threatening Father with knives, and hitting Kingston with a belt. In April, DCFS filed a subsequent petition (§ 342), followed in May by an amended subsequent petition. After a hearing in July 2012, at which both Mother and Father were present, the court sustained allegations that Mother and Father had a history of engaging in violent altercations, specifically finding true that Father struck Mother with a rope, tied her to a chair, and slapped her, that Mother threw boiling water at Father, and that Mother inappropriately physically disciplined Kingston by striking him with a belt.

Mother's reunification services with respect to Kingston were terminated in January 2013.⁶ Father'sreunification services with respect to Kingston were terminated in November 2013. Father had participated in four weeks of counseling in Alabama, which DCFS and the court found insufficient to meet the requirements of his reunification plan. Father sought review by way of petition for writ. We denied relief. (See In re K.W. (Mar. 24, 2014, B252748) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2058.)

2. Ky

In 2012, while the proceeding involving Kingston was pending, Mother gave birth to a daughter, Ky, in California. Ky tested positive for marijuana. Mother appeared at the jurisdictional hearing and conceded jurisdiction. She began participating in counseling, doing well for a period of time. However, she started to make bizarre claims about the grandparents and to threaten Kingston during visitation, and was discharged from her counseling program for misbehavior.

Mother initially identified another man as Ky's father. In April 2013, the court found that Father was Ky's presumed father.⁷ At a November 2013 hearing, the court initiated reunification services for Father but denied his request for a home-of-parent placement, and ordered six additional months of reunification services for Mother. Mother and Father appealed the court's November 2013 orders, seeking return of Ky or unmonitored visitation. In October 2014, this court affirmed the orders. (In re K.G. (Oct. 14, 2014, B252758) 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7290.)

3. Kim

In August 2013, while still residing in Los Angeles County, Mother gave birth to a third child, Kim. Because the baby was being well cared for, Mother was living with relatives and complying with her case plan, and Father appeared to have returned to Alabama, DCFS did not intervene until April 2014, when it received reports that Father had either moved into the home or was a dailyvisitor, that he had been heard yelling at Mother in the home, and that while accompanying Mother to a medical appointment for one of the children, he had become combative and verbally aggressive. After several unannounced visits by caseworkers, a caseworker found Father at Mother's home. Father behaved in a threatening manner, yelling for an extended period. He claimed to have sent Mother and Kim to Alabama. The caseworker called law enforcement.

After Kim was detained, Father left messages for the caseworker that were described in the reports as "threatening and argumentative."⁸ A new caseworker was assigned, but Father remained hostile and refused to communicate over the telephone. At the jurisdictional hearing, the court found true that Mother and Father had a history of engaging in violent altercations and instructed Father to participate in a 52-week domestic violence program and individual counseling to address anger management and domestic violence. It ordered Mother to participate in individual counseling to address domesticviolence and empowerment. It ordered both parents to undergo Evidence Code section 730 psychiatric evaluations.⁹

In October 2014, three years after Kingston's detention, Father commenced the required domestic violence program. He was visiting the children regularly. The monitors described him as caring, loving and affectionate. His counselor said he was doing well and recommended that Father be permitted unmonitored visitation. However, the caseworker reported that Father remained belligerent and uncooperative toward him.

At a contested review hearing in June 2015, Kim's attorney expressed concern that Father continued to exhibit "anger and inappropriate reactions" and that his "pattern of dishonesty" concerning his living arrangement and relationship with Mother would lead to a cover up of any future domestic violence. The court found that both parents had made significant progress in resolving the issues that led to Kim's removal, and extended reunification services. It granted Father unmonitored day visitation with Kingston and Ky, and gave DCFS discretion to liberalize visitationwith Kim.¹⁰ In July 2015, the court issued a restraining order against Father, after the caseworker presented evidence that Father had threatened him in a telephone conversation the day after he testified at the review hearing. Father appealed, contending Kim should have been placed in his custody at the June 2015 hearing, or that he should have been allowed unmonitored visitation. Father also appealed the restraining order, contending it was not supported by substantial evidence. In August 2016, this Court affirmed the court's orders. (See In re K.G. (Aug. 15, 2016, B265472) 2016 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5952.)

B. Underlying Proceedings

1. Termination of Parental Rights (Kingston and Ky)

In October 2015, DCFS filed a section 366.26 report for Kingston and Ky, recommending termination of parental rights so the children could be adopted by the maternal grandparents.¹¹ DCFS submitted further reports statingKingston and Ky were adoptable because the maternal grandparents...