Filed 8/17/26 In re G.T. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re G.T., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND D087955
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
(Super. Ct. No. NJ15765)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Alejandro Morales, Judge. Dismissed.
Neale B. Gold for Defendant and Appellant.
Damon M. Brown, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy
County Counsel, and Indra N. Bennett, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A.T. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order limiting her
educational rights over her daughter, G.T., claiming the court abused its
discretion in doing so. The San Diego County Health and Human Services
Agency (Agency) has moved to dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement
doctrine citing Mother’s repeated violations of court orders and the fact she
absconded with G.T. for nearly three years.
On this record, we agree with the Agency that dismissal of the appeal is
a proper sanction under the disentitlement doctrine. However, even if we
declined to dismiss the appeal, we would reject Mother’s claim of error on the
merits and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2021, the Agency filed a petition alleging that two-year-old
G.T. fell within the scope of Welfare and Institutions Code,1 section 300,
subdivision (b)(1). The Agency filed the petition after receiving a report that
M.K. (Father) was arrested for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse. The
ensuing investigation revealed several additional incidents of domestic
violence between Mother and Father in G.T.’s presence.
At the detention hearing, the court detained G.T. with Mother. At the
September 2021 adjudication and disposition hearing, the court sustained the
petition and took jurisdiction of G.T. The court ordered G.T. placed with
Mother with family maintenance services.
On January 5, 2022, the Agency received a referral from law
enforcement regarding allegations that “[M]other had taken
1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
methamphetamine several times per day in the last few days.” The social
worker asked Mother to perform a drug test, but Mother did not comply with
the request. The social worker visited Mother’s home multiple times and left
her several voicemails requesting a return call, but Mother did not respond.
Mother responded to a letter from the social worker and said she did not
know about the referral until she received the letter and blamed the incident
on her sister. The referral was closed as “unable to locate.”
On February 14, 2022, Mother traveled with G.T. to Minnesota to visit
the maternal grandmother without the court’s permission. Mother informed
the social worker that she and G.T. were staying at a hotel near maternal
grandmother’s home but declined to provide the address to both the hotel and
grandmother’s home. On February 18, the social worker interacted with G.T.
through a video call and observed that G.T. appeared healthy and happy.
On March 3, the court held a special hearing to address Mother’s travel
to Minnesota. Mother’s attorney stated that the maternal grandmother had
fallen ill and Mother had to travel to Minnesota “due to her mother’s severe
health problems and subsequent hospitalization.” G.T.’s attorney opposed
Mother’s request for travel noting that Mother had not complied with the
Agency’s requests to drug test and there were concerns she was actively using
drugs. The Agency expressed concern with Mother’s lack of cooperation with
the previous drug related referral and her lack of participation in any
domestic violence program. The Agency requested that Mother return to San
Diego as soon as possible to engage in services and address the drug use
issues. Because Mother had maintained contact with the social worker and
there were no “immediate apparent concerns regarding the safety of the
child,” the court authorized Mother to remain in Minnesota with G.T. until
March 15. The court ordered Mother to undergo a hair follicle test upon her
3
return and to maintain weekly video contact with the social worker and
minor’s counsel or her investigator.
On March 8, 2022, the social worker texted Mother requesting the
maternal grandmother’s address. Mother replied that maternal grandmother
refused to provide it. The social worker explained that the court ordered that
she provide G.T.’s address and asked whether G.T. was staying in the
maternal grandmother’s home. Mother replied that they were staying in a
nearby hotel. The social worker reiterated that the court needed the hotel’s
address. Two days later, Mother replied stating that the hotel was called
“extended stay,” but did not provide the address. The next day, the social
worker texted Mother to ask whether G.T.’s medical and dental exams were
up to date but did not receive a response.
On March 14, the court held a special hearing regarding Mother’s
request to extend her and G.T.’s stay in Minnesota to March 18 so maternal
grandmother could accompany them. G.T.’s attorney asked the court to order
Mother to return to San Diego immediately as she had still not been drug
tested and had failed to meet with the investigator as previously ordered.
The court stated Mother had not made “a great deal of effort” to keep the
court informed but would give Mother “one last opportunity” and extended
her visit to March 18. The court further ordered that Mother provide the
social worker with a copy of the purchased plane tickets for her and G.T. and
to confirm their return to San Diego on March 18.
On March 17, the social worker asked Mother about her plans for
returning to San Diego but did not receive a response. At the continued
review hearing on March 21, Mother did not appear and did not answer the
court’s phone calls. The Agency stated it had not been able to contact Mother
and had no information on whether she returned to California as ordered and
4
therefore requested a bench warrant for Mother’s arrest and a pick-up and
detain order for G.T. Mother’s counsel opposed issuance of a warrant but
provided no additional information. G.T.’s counsel stated her investigators
made “a few” unsuccessful attempts to reach Mother since the last hearing,
had no information on G.T.’s whereabouts, and joined the request for a bench
warrant for Mother and pick-up and detain order for G.T. The court issued a
bench warrant for Mother’s arrest and a pick-up and detain order for G.T.
The social worker continued calling Mother, the maternal
grandmother, and maternal aunt but received no response. The maternal
grandmother had last informed the social worker that Mother may have left
the country and gone to Belize.
On April 11, at the continued family maintenance review hearing,
Mother appeared telephonically, denied drug use and stated she was not in
Belize, and requested a continuance. G.T.’s attorney stated her investigator
had not been able to reach Mother or have contact with G.T. and requested
the court ask Mother to provide an address and phone number to verify G.T.’s
well-being. G.T.’s attorney further requested that the bench warrant and
pick-up and detain orders remain in place until Mother returned to
San Diego with G.T. The Agency requested that the court inquire as to
Mother’s location and order that Mother surrender G.T. to the child welfare
services office that day. Mother’s counsel explained that Mother remained in
Minnesota and was unable to return to San Diego because of financial
hardship. The court stated that G.T. had been outside the jurisdiction of
California without permission from the court and Mother had not been
proactive in trying to have G.T. available to the Agency or minor’s counsel.
As a result, the court stated the bench warrant for Mother’s arrest and the
5
pick-up and detain order for G.T. remained outstanding. Mother hung up
before the hearing ended without providing an address or telephone number.
A week later, the court held an additional family maintenance review
hearing. Mother was present telephonically. The social worker informed the
court that he had contacted the Mankato, Minnesota police department, the
Mankato child welfare services agency, local law enforcement, and reported
G.T. missing to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
None of the agencies had been able to locate Mother or G.T. The court noted
the gravity of the situation and ordered the bench warrant for Mother’s
arrest and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. to remain in effect. Mother
declined to provide her address and telephone number citing domestic
violence concerns.
On September 7, the court heard Mother’s request to represent herself.
Given the outstanding pick-up and detain order for G.T. and the bench
warrant for Mother’s arrest, the court required Mother to appear in person to
make her motion. Mother explained she remained in Minnesota due to her
mother’s illness and stated the earliest she could appear in person would be
in one month. The court expressed its frustration with the repetitiveness of
the situation and set a hearing for September 29. The court further
instructed Mother to provide G.T.’s address to her attorney and assured
Mother it would remain confidential.
The Agency reported that after the September 7 hearing, the social
worker called the Mankato police department and asked for a welfare check
on G.T. at the addresses Mother provided for maternal grandmother and
maternal aunt. The Mankato police officer reported, “the family appeared to
no longer reside at those addresses.”
6
On September 27, the court held a special hearing on Mother’s request
to continue the hearing scheduled for September 29 because of financial
hardship in purchasing airfare to return to San Diego. The court did not
continue the next hearing and instructed the Agency to assist Mother in
purchasing plane tickets to ensure her and G.T.’s personal appearance at the
September 29 hearing.
After the hearing, the social worker received a series of text messages
from Mother stating that G.T. was going to stay with Mother’s immediate
family while she attended the hearing. The social worker reminded Mother
that G.T. was also ordered to appear and there was a bench warrant for
Mother’s arrest. The next day, Mother texted the social worker to inform her
that G.T.’s last name was incorrect on the plane ticket, and she may not be
able to get it corrected in time. Mother went on to say that the incorrect
name, lack of transportation in San Diego, lack of a return flight to
Minnesota, and not wanting to cause G.T. anxiety was all making her “lean[ ]
more towards rescheduling.”
On September 29, Mother failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
The court noted the social worker had purchased plane tickets for Mother as
instructed. The Agency asked the court to reissue the arrest warrant for
Mother and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. The Agency informed the
court that it had contacted the local district attorney’s office abduction unit,
and the social worker had been in contact with the relevant police
department and child welfare agency in Minnesota. The court ordered
Mother to appear in person on October 31 and indicated Mother’s arrest
warrant and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. remained outstanding.
On October 9, a Mankato police officer informed the social worker that
maternal aunt claimed that Mother was in Mexico. On October 19, the social
7
worker spoke with Father who stated he did not know where G.T. was but
that he saw her on WhatsApp on a regular basis and was not concerned about
her well-being. The next day, the social worker texted Mother and told her to
return to San Diego because the district attorney’s child abduction unit was
handling the case. Mother stated that she had been attempting to appeal
and that G.T. was safe and attending daycare. When the social worker asked
for their current address, Mother replied they were in North Mankato,
Minnesota, but refused to provide an exact address.
On October 31, Mother failed to appear for the family maintenance
review hearing. Granting the Agency’s request, the court continued the
matter for three months and ordered that the arrest warrant for Mother and
pick-up and detain orders for G.T. remain outstanding.
On January 31, 2023, Mother appeared telephonically at the family
maintenance review hearing, requested that the arrest warrant be recalled,
and informed the court that she had made G.T. available for visits to Father
and the social worker. The Agency agreed to a continuance to get further
updates on G.T.’s location. When the court asked Mother for G.T.’s current
location, Mother replied, “Mankato, Minnesota,” but refused to provide a
street address citing safety concerns with Father. The court expressed its
frustration with “[M]other’s manipulation of the situation,” continued the
matter, and ordered the arrest warrant and pick-up and detain orders to
remain outstanding.
On March 23, Mother texted the social worker and stated she had just
returned to Minnesota and demanded a “case re-evaluation with all
appropriate and relevant documents.” The social worker reminded Mother of
the upcoming court hearing, warrant for her arrest, and the pick-up and
detain order for G.T.
8
The court set continued review hearings at three-month intervals and
Mother failed to appear at the next eight hearings. Each time, the court
continued the matter for three months and kept the arrest warrant and pick-
up and detain orders in place. At the October 25 hearing, the Agency
informed the court that the D.A.’s office had been in contact with Mother, and
they believed she was in Mexico. At the January 25, 2024 hearing, the court
noted that G.T. had been missing for almost two years.
In May 2025, Mother left a voicemail for the social worker asking to
“not to be harassed anymore” and stating that G.T. was doing well and
finishing Kindergarten. When the social worker reminded her of the open
dependency case, Mother claimed she had “100 percent custody” and
threatened to sue for harassment.
In September, Father informed the Agency that G.T. was in the custody
of the Mexican child welfare agency, DIF, in Playa del Carmen, Yucatan.
The Agency coordinated with the district attorney’s office to facilitate G.T.’s
return to the United States. G.T. returned to the United States on
December 12.
On December 23, the Agency filed a petition pursuant to section 387 to
remove G.T. from Mother’s custody. The next day, the court held a detention
hearing at which Mother failed to appear. The court stated a prima facie
showing had been made and the allegations in the petition were true. The
court noted that Mother absconded with G.T. and that they were found in
Playa del Carmen, Mexico after Mother was arrested for being “aggressive
and threatening to someone who was trying to help her.” The court recalled
the arrest warrant for Mother and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. G.T.
was detained with the paternal grandparents.
9
At the January 26, 2026 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court
ordered liberal supervised visitation for Mother and reminded Mother of the
importance of updating her address.
On March 2, 2026, the court held the contested jurisdiction and
disposition hearing. The court considered that Mother absconded with G.T.
while under family maintenance and was found in Mexico by Mexican
authorities when Mother was arrested for being under the influence. A
physical evaluation revealed G.T. had 13 cavities and lacked education. G.T.
also stated she had seen Mother drunk. As such, the court sustained the
petition, made a true finding, and stated it believed G.T. should continue to
be removed from the custody of the parents. The court additionally
designated the paternal grandparents as holding educational rights over G.T.
given that Mother was out of state and had previously absconded.
DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal Is Warranted Under the Doctrine of Disentitlement
The Agency asks the court to dismiss Mother’s appeal under the
disentitlement doctrine on the grounds that Mother “was willful, deceptive,
and obstructive to an inexcusable degree” by “violating a multitude of court
orders for nearly three years” and absconding to Mexico and hiding G.T. In
opposing the motion to dismiss, Mother asserts that application of the
disentitlement doctrine is not appropriate here because it is “reserved for the
rarest cases of ongoing defiance of court authority” and Mother “does not
stand in an attitude of contempt.” We disagree with Mother’s contention that
the doctrine requires a current standing of contempt.
Under the disentitlement doctrine, an appellate court has the inherent
power to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower
court order. (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 (E.M.)) Although
10
most often applied where the appeal arises out of the very order the party has
disobeyed, the doctrine “may also apply to cases in which the appellant has
violated orders other than the one from which the appeal has been taken.”
(Id. at p. 477; In re A.K. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 281, 286.)
Appellate disentitlement “ ‘is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a
discretionary tool that may be applied [to dismiss an appeal] when the
balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.’ ” (E.M., supra,
204 Cal.App.4th at p. 474.) The doctrine is based on the notion that “ ‘[i]t is
contrary to the principles of justice to permit one who has flaunted the orders
of the courts to seek judicial assistance.’ ” (Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of
Pomo Indians (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 736, 756 (Findleton).) Importantly,
“ ‘[a] formal judgment of contempt . . . is not a prerequisite to exercising [an
appellate court’s] power to dismiss; rather, we may dismiss an appeal where
there has been willful disobedience or obstructive tactics.’ ” (E.M., supra, 204
Cal.App.4th at p. 477; accord Findleton, at p. 756; In re A.K., supra, 246
Cal.App.4th at pp. 285–286.)
“In dependency cases, the doctrine has been applied only in cases of the
most egregious conduct by the appellant, which frustrates the purpose of
dependency law and makes it impossible to protect the child or act in the
child's best interests.” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 474 citing
In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1229 [father absconded with
minor]; Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293,
1299 [grandparents absconded with minor]; Adoption of Jacob C. (1994)
25 Cal.App.4th 617, 623–624 [mother abducted child].)
Thus, the disentitlement doctrine “applies to ‘egregious’ conduct that
frustrates the juvenile court from carrying out its orders” whether or not
appellant is in violation of the order from which they appeal. (E.M., supra,
11
204 Cal.App.4th at p. 477; see also Tms, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th
377, 379 [The court dismissed an appeal from a judgment based on the
appellants’ violation of a separate postjudgment order].)
Here, Mother was participating in the dependency case, was receiving
family maintenance services, and was aware of the investigation into
allegations of her use of methamphetamine when she left the state with G.T.
without notice to the court. When Mother failed to appear as ordered, the
court issued an arrest warrant for Mother and a pick-up and detain order for
G.T. Mother then provided a series of excuses for why she could not return to
San Diego with G.T. while inconsistently appearing at hearings and
consistently refusing to provide an accurate address for G.T. After
approximately one year and a half of ongoing proceedings, Mother cut off
communication with the court and over the course of the next two years she
failed to appear at eight successive hearings. During that time, it is believed
that Mother fled to Mexico with G.T. When Mother briefly reemerged, she
left the social worker a message threatening to sue for harassment. After
being missing for approximately three and a half years, G.T. was found in the
custody of Mexican authorities and returned to the U.S.
By absconding to an unknown location in Minnesota and then to
Mexico, Mother “effectively undermined and frustrated the core purpose of
California’s dependency law—to protect and benefit the interests of children
who are the subject of a section 300 petition.” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th
at p. 476.) For nearly three years, Mother successfully avoided any
supervision or oversight by either the juvenile court or the Agency. As a
result, the juvenile court was unable to enforce its orders and extend its
protection to G.T. Even after Mother and G.T. were eventually located, the
Agency was unable to determine the conditions under which G.T. lived or the
12
education she received during the years she was missing. Because Mother
was solely responsible for the juvenile court’s inability to fully implement the
procedures intended to protect G.T., she forfeited her right to challenge the
order from which she appeals. (See Findleton, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at
p. 756
“Unlike the parents in In re Claudia S. [(2005)] 131 Cal.App.4th
236, who took the children to Mexico before the filing of a section 300 petition
and the entry of any orders by the juvenile court, Mother in this case was
fully involved in and subject to the dependency proceedings prior to fleeing
the jurisdiction . . . .” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 478.) Although the
bench warrant for her arrest has now been recalled, Mother was fully aware
of it and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. were outstanding during the
years they were missing. Under these circumstances, there is an adequate
basis for determining that Mother’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to
warrant the application of the doctrine of disentitlement and dismissing her
appeal.
B. Even If We Declined to Dismiss Mother’s Appeal, We Would Reject Her
Claim of Error on the Merits.
Mother argues the court abused its discretion when it limited her
educational rights and appointed the paternal grandparents. Mother
contends that because she was “consistently visiting with [G.T.] and not
impeding her education,” limiting her rights was an abuse of discretion. We
disagree.
Parents “have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in directing
their children’s education” (In re R.W. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1276
(R.W.)), but the juvenile court may limit the right of a parent to
make educational decisions on behalf of a child where necessary to protect
13
the child so long as any such limitations do not exceed those necessary to
protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (a)(1).) A parent’s inability and unwillingness
to make educational decisions are factors that are relevant to a
determination of whether a limitation is “necessary to protect the child.”
(Ibid.) “All educational decisions must be based on the best interests of the
child.” (In re Samuel G. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 502, 510.)
In reviewing the juvenile court's decision to suspend a parent’s
education decision-making rights, we apply an abuse of discretion standard,
keeping in mind the focus of dependency proceedings is on the child rather
than the parent. (R.W., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1277.)
The court considered the educational delays G.T. exhibited and the
need for her caregivers to be able to “immediately respond to any concerns
such as [IEP].”2 The court noted Mother’s location out of state and the fact
she had previously absconded. Based on its findings, the court limited
Mother’s educational rights and appointed the paternal grandparents as the
holders of G.T.’s educational rights.
Mother has not shown that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
limiting her educational rights and appointing the paternal grandparents.
The record includes contradicting information regarding G.T.’s educational
history. The Agency’s reports show Mother was given referrals to enroll G.T.
in the Head Start program, but Mother declined services and indicated she
planned to pursue “private daycare” instead. Later, Mother told the social
worker that G.T. was “attending school then privately tutored while [she]
2 An “IEP” is an individualized education program specifically designed
to meet the educational needs of a student with disabilities. (In re Carl
R. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1067.)
14
returned to work.” In her interview with Mexican authorities, Mother stated
that G.T. attended a Montessori School from age three to five and then
attended Kindergarten. Yet, G.T. told the paternal grandmother that she
“was in two different daycares while her mom work[ed]” and that she had
never been to school. The paternal grandmother observed that G.T. could not
write her name at nearly seven years old. Moreover, the social worker
reported that G.T. was “below grade level at school” and could not “yet read
and [had] rudimentary writing skills.” Under these circumstances, the court
could reasonably find that Mother was unable to make educational decisions
in G.T.’s best interests and thus an order limiting her educational rights was
necessary to protect G.T.
Mother next contends that the limitations the juvenile court placed on
her educational rights exceed those necessary to protect G.T. and suggests
that the court could have allowed her to “share them with the caregiver” in
order to promote reunification and “keeping Mother involved in her child’s
education.” As an initial matter, nothing in the court’s order precludes the
paternal grandparents from providing information to or including Mother.
However, Mother has a well-documented history of disappearing, failing to
answer and return phone calls, and providing contradictory information
regarding G.T.’s educational history. Such behaviors could impede the ability
of others to discuss the available resources and best solutions for G.T. Given
this history, we conclude that the juvenile court’s broad limitation of
Mother’s educational rights, giving the paternal grandparents the authority
to make educational decisions for G.T., was necessary. (See R.W., supra, 172
Cal.App.4th at p. 1277.)
Finally, Mother argues that the juvenile court improperly considered
the fact that she lives out of the county in limiting her educational rights.
15
While we agree with Mother that she could have participated in any
necessary meetings by telephone, just as she did for the court hearing, this
fact does not change our analysis. The underlying issue is Mother’s
unreliable availability by phone and G.T.’s need for educational decisions to
be made in a timely manner.
This evidence amply supported the court’s decision to limit Mother’s
educational rights. Under the circumstances, we conclude the juvenile court
did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
BERMÚDEZ, J.
16