Christi F. v. Super.
Filed 6/20/13 Christi F. v. Super. Ct. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
CHRISTI F.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF IMPERIAL
COUNTY,
Respondent;
D063614
(Imperial
County
Super. Ct.
No. JJP02537)
IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
PROCEEDINGS
in mandate after referral to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26
hearing. Christopher W. Yeager,
Judge. Petition denied.
Law Offices of Thomas W. Storey and Thomas W. Storey for
Petitioner.
Michael L.
Rood, County Counsel,
Geoffrey P. Holbrook and Haislip W. Hayes III, Deputy County Counsel, for Real
Party in Interest Imperial County Department of Social Services.
Timothy J.
Reilly, State Public Defender, Kelly Ranasinghe, Deputy State Public Defender,
for Real Party in Interest Alexis H., a Minor.
Christi F.
seeks review of a juvenile court order
setting a hearing under section 366.26.
She contends the court improperly applied the disentitlement doctrine,
which deprives a party of the right to
present a defense as a result of the litigant's violation of the processes
of the court. Christi contends the
denial of her right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at the
12-month review hearing requires reversal of the order terminating
reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.
Although
the application of the disentitlement doctrine at review hearings in
rare, on this record we cannot conclude that the court erred in applying the
doctrine. Accordingly, we deny the
petition.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January
2012, the Imperial County Department of Social Services (DSS) took 16-year-old
Alexis H. into protective custody. Alexis was hospitalized for treatment of
acute psychosis. She had been sexually
molested by her mother's boyfriend. At
the time she was detained, Alexis was living on the streets and trading sex for
drugs and rent.
Alexis's
mother, Christi, has an ongoing history of severe methamphetamine use. DSS received more than 30 referrals to child
protective services concerning her children.
Christi was involved in dependency proceedings in 2006. Christi said she allowed Alexis to live with
a man because her older daughter lived with him. Christi knew the man was known in the
neighborhood as the "child molester."
She blamed her older daughter for Alexis's drug use. Alexis's father is not involved in her life.
The
juvenile court took jurisdiction over Alexis, removed her from parental custody
and ordered a plan of family reunification services. Alexis remained at the Betty Jo McNeece
Receiving Home (McNeece) pending placement.
Her mental health condition was diagnosed as bipolar disorder, NOS and
posttraumatic stress disorder, consistent with sexual abuse, cannabis abuse and
methamphetamine dependence.
In March
2012, Alexis was placed at Haskell Group Home (Haskell). When Christi visited Alexis, their
conversations centered on drugs and drug use.
After the court imposed supervision requirements on visitation, Christi
stopped visiting Alexis, which upset Alexis.
Alexis said she and her mother used drugs together.
Alexis frequently
left Haskell for one to four hours at a time, without explanation. Staff found methamphetamine in her room. Alexis said she had smoked methamphetamine
and prostituted herself since she was 14 years old. She could not live without methamphetamine and
did not want to stop using. Alexis began
to run away from Haskell for longer periods of time.
In August,
Alexis was severely beaten when she "short-[changed]" a drug
dealer. The drug dealer decided to sell
Alexis in Mexico, however a local man paid Alexis's debt in exchange for owning
her "on the streets." When
Alexis was treated for the assault, she had stiletto heels, a negligee and an
adult sex game with her.
On
September 2, Alexis was admitted into McNeece and ran away on September 5,
2012. DSS was unable to locate her. The social worker repeatedly contacted
Christi to ask her if she knew Alexis's whereabouts. Christi said Alexis telephoned her from an
undisclosed number. She could tell
Alexis was sober and doing well by the sound of her voice. In December, a minor reported that Christi
telephoned Alexis and allowed the minor to speak with her. Christi denied having Alexis's telephone
number. The minor said Alexis could
barely talk and appeared to be under the influence of drugs.
In January
2013, a woman identifying herself as Alexis's mother brought Alexis to the Yuma
(Arizona) Regional Medical Center emergency room at approximately 1:00
a.m. Alexis said she was hearing voices
telling her to hurt herself. After an
initial assessment, the woman left with Alexis, saying she was taking her to a
mental health facility. At approximately
11:30 a.m. the next morning, a woman identifying herself as "Karen"
dropped Alexis off at a substance abuse recovery group home and said "see
what you can do for her." Alexis
admitted she had used methamphetamine that morning.
Alexis told
a Yuma police officer she had been living in a trailer with her mother. When social worker Esther Martinez visited
Alexis, Alexis appeared to be hearing voices.
At times she sat without expression.
She was committed to a California hospital on a section 5150 hold. Alexis admitted to daily use of
methamphetamine and vodka, when available.
She was not oriented to person, time or place. Her mental health condition was diagnosed as
psychosis, NOS, rule out substance induced; methamphetamine and alcohol
dependence, ongoing; and alcohol, marijuana and PCP abuse, ongoing.
In reports
prepared for the 12-month review hearing, DSS described Christi's lack of
compliance with her court-ordered case plan and asked the court to terminate
family reunification services. DSS could
not locate an appropriate treatment program in California for Alexis and
recommended placement in an out-of-state treatment program.
Christi
asked the court to return Alexis to her custody and terminate
jurisdiction. Christi planned to enroll
Alexis in a substance abuse treatment
program.
At a
hearing on March 4, minor's counsel noticed the parties that if the 12-month
review hearing was contested, he would rely on the disentitlement doctrine as
to the mother.
At the
12-month review hearing, Christi objected to the admission of hearsay in the
social worker's report. Minor's counsel
asked the court to apply the disentitlement doctrine to prevent Christi from
presenting a defense or objecting to the report. He asked permission to call witnesses to show
that Christi thwarted the processes of the juvenile court by concealing Alexis
from DSS and the court. The court
allowed minor's counsel to proceed.
Tena
Hussey, the social worker currently assigned to Alexis's case, testified that
Alexis said she stayed in a trailer in Yuma from September 2012 to January
2013. During that time, her mother
brought food, methamphetamine and marijuana to her. Alexis asked Hussey to pick up her belongings
from the trailer, specifically a mirror, methamphetamine, marijuana and
lingerie. Alexis said, "Please
don't tell my mom about the lingerie. My
mom knows about the meth and the marijuana, but she doesn't know about the
lingerie."
Esther
Martinez, the previous social worker assigned to the case, testified that
Alexis told her that Christi visited her in the trailer park and brought
groceries to her. Alexis was using methamphetamine. Christi rented the trailer in which Alexis
lived and paid the rent each month in person.
Another witness saw Christi and Alexis shopping at Walmart in El Centro
shortly before Christmas 2012.
Christi
denied helping Alexis after she ran away from placement. Before September 5, she had returned Alexis
to DSS four times, including the time she was assaulted. Christi never smoked marijuana or used
methamphetamine with Alexis. She denied
bringing groceries to her. Christi
received telephone calls from Alexis but did not know her telephone
number. Christi was not familiar with
the Yuma trailer park because she spent most of her time in El Centro working
and going to parenting classes. She was
not in Walmart with Alexis in December 2012.
The court
found that Christi was hiding Alexis from DSS in violation of the orders of the
court, and the disentitlement doctrine would appear to apply. County counsel offered the social worker's
report in evidence. Christi objected to
the admission of hearsay and other unfounded information in the report.
County
counsel called the author of the report, Esther Martinez, to testify. She said Christi completed a basic parenting
class and obtained a certificate of attendance for an advanced parenting class. She did not participate in individual or
family counseling. Christi did not
cooperate with the social worker. She
did not report Alexis's whereabouts.
Christi tested positive for drugs in February 2013.
The court
said, "All right. [Mother's
counsel]?"
Mother's
counsel asked, "Is the court going to allow me to
cross-examine?"
The court
said, "You can cross-examine as to the admissibility of or the basis for
the conclusions that the witness has just drawn."
Minor's
counsel objected, stating that the disentitlement doctrine operated to prevent
the mother from asserting any defenses.
Citing In re Kamelia S. (2000)
82 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Kamelia S.),
minor's counsel argued Christi stood in an attitude of contempt of court and
should not be allowed to utilize the court's legal defenses to assert her
claim.
After
reviewing Kamelia S., the court found
that Christi was barred from objecting to the admission of the social worker's
report. The court found that reasonable
services were offered to Christi and she made only minimal progress toward
alleviating the causes necessitating Alexis's placement. The court terminated family reunification
services, ordered Alexis placed at an out-of-state treatment facility and set a
section 366.26 hearing.
Christi
petitioned for review of the juvenile court's orders. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) She asks this court to reverse the orders
setting a section 366.26 hearing, and to remand the matter with directions to
the juvenile court to enter orders for family reunification services and grant
a new hearing on the issue. This court
issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties waived oral
argument.
DISCUSSION
"The
disentitlement doctrine is based on the equitable notion that a party to an
action cannot seek the assistance of a court while the party 'stands in an
attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this
state.' " (In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236, 244, citing
Cal.2d 271, 277.) In the context of
family and dependency cases, the disentitlement doctrine has been applied to
appellate proceedings in which the party seeking relief has abducted the child
in violation of trial court orders. (
of father who had absconded with his child]; Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299
[grandparents who took child out of country in violation of guardianship orders
could not appeal denial of their guardianship petition].) In trial court proceedings, "[t]he
doctrine has also been applied to conduct that frustrates the ability of a
party to obtain information it needs to protect its rights." (In re
Claudia S., at p. 245, citing In re
C.C. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 76, 85, 86 [mother's refusal to
participate in a psychological evaluation interfered with the child's legal
right to have her case proceed to the permanency planning stage].) In Adoption
of Jacob C. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 617, the reviewing court affirmed
the juvenile court's application of the disentitlement doctrine to bar a
fugitive mother who had abducted one of her children from challenging the
stepmother's petition to terminate her rights to another child unless the
mother personally appeared in the action.
(Id. at pp. 617,
623-624.)
"The
disentitlement doctrine has been applied to deprive a party of the right to
present a defense as a result of the litigant's violation of the processes of
the court, withholding of evidence, defaulting on court-imposed obligations,
disobeying court orders, or other actions justifying a judgment of
default. [Citation.]" (Adoption
of Jacob C., supra, 25
Cal.App.4th at p. 624.) Here, the
record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's findings
that Christi hid Alexis from the court in another state, repeatedly lied to the
social worker about Alexis's whereabouts and well-being, provided
methamphetamine and other drugs to Alexis and denied Alexis access to
appropriate psychiatric care and support services. (In re
Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 [appellate court reviews the
evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and indulges in all legitimate
and reasonable inferences to uphold the court's ruling].) The juvenile court reasonably determined that
Christi withheld crucial evidence from the court and thwarted the purpose of
the juvenile court proceedings, which is to protect the child from further
harm. (§ 300.2.) On this record, we cannot conclude the
juvenile court erred when it barred Christi from presenting a defense at the
12-month review hearing under the disentitlement doctrine.
Further,
error, if any, is harmless. Christi
presented a defense and cross-examined the social worker during the hearing on
the application of the disentitlement doctrine in which she denied the social
worker's allegations and presented her side of the story. The juvenile court did not credit her testimony. In view of Alexis's severe mental health
problems and substance abuse addiction, which were exacerbated by Christi's
conduct, Christi's severe and protracted methamphetamine use and lack of
progress in her court-ordered treatment plan, it is not reasonably probable
that Christi would have obtained a more favorable result had she formally
presented a defense at the 12-month review hearing. (People
v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
DISPOSITION
The
petition is denied.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
All further statutory references
are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
