Filed 5/31/22 In re Z.G. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie Davis, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

S.G., the mother of two boys, challenges jurisdictional findings she physically abused them and a dispositional order to drug test. We affirm. Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

I

The mother and the father adopted Z.G. and L.G. as infants. Between 2014 and 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services investigated five referrals alleging abuse or neglect of the boys. The juvenile court sustained a section 300 petition in 2014 that alleged the parents were violent in front of the children, the father physically abused Z.G., the father attacked and seriously injured a neighbor, and the father continued to live with the family despite a restraining order against him. In 2016, the parents divorced and the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction with an order granting sole legal and physical custody to the mother and monitored visits for the father. The remaining four referrals alleged the mother abused the children and were not substantiated. While the Department investigated one referral, Z.G. and L.G. were detained from the mother and stayed in foster care for a few days.

On May 5, 2021, sheriffs responded to a child abuse call. A neighbor told the sheriffs her son found Z.G. at the street corner with a duffel bag, so she allowed Z.G. to stay with them overnight. Z.G. told sheriffs he and his mother fought about his grades and she punched him seven times in the chest and arms. He said the mother hit him often “since he was a little kid,” and one time she split his lip. When he was younger, the mother would spank him with a belt. He said the mother also hit his younger brother L.G.

The sheriffs spoke to the mother, who said Z.G. was defiant and difficult but denied the abuse. She said he did not have permission to stay with the neighbors, whom she alleged were felons and “a bad influence.” The maternal grandfather reported the mother had told Z.G. if he did not want to follow the rules, he could leave the house; Z.G. took her literally and packed a bag. L.G. denied any abuse, but sheriffs noted he seemed scared to talk to them.

The Department investigated. Z.G. consistently reported the abuse to his father, to sheriffs, and to the Department. But only the father corroborated Z.G.’s claims of abuse. The father provided text messages Z.G. sent him with images of his split lip and text saying the mother did it while drunk. The record contains these messages. L.G. consistently reported no abuse. A social worker described L.G. as “reserved and guarded” during interviews. According to his counsel, L.G. was concerned about being detained again and having to stay with strangers.

The mother continued to deny any abuse and said the father was lying in an attempt to get custody. She said she made the call that generated this referral because she had “run out of options on ways to discipline her boys” and needed police to help get Z.G. home from the neighbor’s house. She blamed Z.G. for causing the family problems, and she did not bring him to a scheduled forensic interview.

The Department filed a section 300 petition on June 18, 2021. At the time, the boys lived in the mother’s home with the mother, the maternal grandmother, and their adult sister. The father lived separately. The petition alleged the mother physically abused the children with a fist, an open hand, and previously with a belt. It further alleged the mother instructed them to lie and deny the abuse.

On August 3, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the petition. The court found Z.G.’s account was credible and the boys had been coached. The court ordered they remain with the mother on condition of her complying with her case plan, including participating in family maintenance services, counseling, parenting classes, and six drug and alcohol tests. The mother objected to testing. She then appealed the jurisdictional findings and the dispositional order to test.

During the pendency of this appeal, on April 14, 2022, the court terminated jurisdiction and released the children to the mother. On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of these April 14, 2022 minute orders. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) A case generally becomes moot when a court can no longer offer meaningful relief. (See In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58–63 [dismissing as moot challenge to juvenile court findings and orders after termination of jurisdiction]; but see In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 716 [addressing appeal after termination when findings could have consequences in future proceedings].) Out of an abundance of caution, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits in this case.

II

First the mother challenges jurisdiction, arguing no evidence showed harm or risk of harm to Z.G. and L.G.

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 (R.T.).) We examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, draw all reasonable inferences in its support, and defer to the juvenile court’s fact and credibility findings. (Ibid.)

The juvenile court explicitly stated it found Z.G.’s account credible. On that account, the mother hit Z.G. and L.G. many times over years, with her hand and with a belt. While smelling of alcohol, she hit Z.G. hard enough to split his lip, and a text message with images in the record supports this allegation. Further, the mother punched Z.G. seven times and kicked him out of the house—even though she believed neighbors to be gang members. Other family members denied any abuse, but the juvenile court believed Z.G. These facts are substantial evidence of abuse to support jurisdiction.

The mother asks us to reweigh the evidence and disregard Z.G.’s credible and consistent story. We decline and defer to the fact finder, as we must. (See R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.)

III

Next the mother argues the dispositional order to submit to six drug and alcohol tests was unreasonable and excessive because there was no substance abuse allegation in the petition and testing was burdensome given the mother’s busy schedule.

Once children become dependents of the juvenile court, the court may make reasonable orders to further their care and support. (§ 362, subds. (a) & (d).) The court has broad discretion to craft dispositional orders for dependent children’s well-being. (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532.) The case plan should be tailored to the family and should aim to remedy the conditions that led to the dependency. (§ 362, subd. (d); In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.) The children’s best interests are paramount. (In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1071–1072.) We review the court’s dispositional orders for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)

The court’s order to submit to drug and alcohol testing was tailored to the facts of this case. Z.G. said he smelled alcohol on the mother’s breath when she hit him. It was reasonable to screen the mother for drug or alcohol dependency as part of her case plan. The order served to ensure the children’s safety in her care and aimed to remedy the physical abuse that led to this petition. Ordering six tests was not an abuse of discretion.

• DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

WILEY, J.

We concur:

STRATTON, P. J.

GRIMES, J.