In re Hugo E.

Filed 2/21/07  In re Hugo E. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

            Veronica E.(Veronica), Fernando E. (Fernando), and minors Hugo E. (Hugo) and Yvette E. (Yvette), appeal jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court.  Because the juvenile court has dismissed the dependency proceedings with respect to both minors, and there are no ongoing orders adversely affecting appellants, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

            I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            Veronica is the mother of Hugo and Yvette; Fernando is their biological father.  The minors came to the attention of respondent Napa County Department of Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services (Department), on September 30, 2005, when the Department received an anonymous call indicating that they might be at substantial risk of physical abuse by Fernando.  That same day, the Department interviewed Hugo and Yvette, who reported that Fernando had repeatedly threatened to kill himself and everyone in the family.

            The Department detained the minors and filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,^[1] asserting that Hugo and Yvette were within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because they had suffered, or were at risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the parents' failure to protect or adequately support them (§  300, subd. (b)), and because they were suffering or at risk of suffering serious emotional damage, as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior, as a result of the parents' conduct (§  300, subd. (c)). 

            At the detention hearing on October 5, 2005, the juvenile court found that the Department had made a prima facie showing that the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c).  Hugo and Yvette were placed with Veronica but detained from Fernando.  The court issued a temporary restraining order precluding Fernando from, among other things, contacting Veronica or the minors. 

            The temporary restraining order against Fernando became a permanent restraining order for three years on October 25, 2005, with the modification that Fernando could contact Veronica.  Fernando, who was in jail at the time, was nonetheless granted visitation with the minors in accordance with the jail's regulations. 

            After mediation, the matter proceeded to a contested jurisdictional hearing.  Unable to complete the hearing in a single day, the juvenile court declared a mistrial and ordered that the jurisdictional hearing start anew on December 23, 2005.  The hearing was further continued and eventually held on January 19 and 20, 2006.

            A.  Jurisdictional Hearing

            At the contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court received testimony from the minors and several other witnesses.  In general, the Department's witnesses advanced the contention that, although the minors had never been directly abused by the parents, the presence of domestic violence in the household and Fernando's volatility put the minors at risk.  The Department also asserted that the family's denial of statements attributed to them by the Department's social workers evinced the likelihood of risk to the minors.  Testimony provided by the family, on the other hand, generally claimed that they had been misunderstood in their interactions with the Department, the minors were not at risk, and the family was capable of addressing its own issues.  The minors largely disavowed the reports that the Department had attributed to them.

            On January 20, 2006, the juvenile court sustained the petition under sections 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), except for the allegation that the parents had not provided adequate food or shelter.  The court explained that it was troubled by the new consistency in the family members' testimony that no domestic violence or bizarre conduct had occurred, given some of their prior contrary and contradictory statements as to what had happened.  In addition, the court observed, Fernando had two convictions for domestic violence and had made threats involving the use of a knife and burning down the home.  The court concluded that, although the parents and minors loved each other, the minors were nevertheless at risk.  In the future, the court noted, Fernando might be reintegrated into the family with the Department's supervision.   

            B.  Disposition Hearing

            At the uncontested disposition hearing on February 14, 2006, the juvenile court found Hugo and Yvette to be dependents and ordered the Department to provide family maintenance services to Veronica and Fernando.  The court further ordered that the minors attend individual therapy and family therapy when recommended by the therapist, that Veronica and Fernando participate in therapy addressing domestic violence and in couples counseling, and that Fernando also complete 52 weeks of anger management courses.  The permanent restraining order against Fernando was terminated, pursuant to the request of county counsel.  The court set a six-month review of family maintenance for August 8, 2006. 

            Through their respective counsel, Veronica, Fernando, and the minors each filed a notice of appeal in April 2006 from the jurisdictional and disposition orders.  As stated in the minors' opening brief in this appeal:  â€