In re Emily M.

Filed 6/20/06 In re Emily M. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

Kara M. appeals the juvenile court dependency orders sustaining petitions and finding her children fell within the jurisdiction of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (g).)^[1] We conclude there is substantial evidence that her children were exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm. We affirm.

FACTS

Kara lived with her husband, Stephen, and their two daughters, ages 12 and 7. The police entered their home with a search warrant and arrested Stephen for possession of methamphetamine for sale. They confiscated 27 illegal assault weapons and contacted the Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS).

Lori Haro, a CWS worker, entered the home and determined it fell below minimum CWS standards. The "bathrooms were filthy with dirt, mold and fungus." Emily's room "was filthy, with empty dishes and soda bottles . . . ." The "stench" was so "unbearable," several police officers refused to enter it. It was difficult to walk through the hallways and living room because of piles of "dirty clothes." The stove, sink and counters contained "dirty dishes and old food." Feces from pet Iguanas were "everywhere."

In the master bedroom, "loaded assault weapons" were in plain view. "A drug scale was visible on the dresser and the nightstand had amphetamine residue." Kara's oldest daughter told CWS that "she knew there were lots of guns" in the home. Kara said she "may have turned 'a blind eye' to [Stephen's] possible drug dealing," and leaving loaded weapons around the home "was a terrible oversight on her part . . . ."

CWS filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging there was a substantial risk that Kara's children "will suffer, serious physical harm or illness . . . ." (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)

Haro testified that before the dependency petition was filed, Kara had refused to cooperate with CWS. She said the unsanitary home conditions were the result of a long period of neglect.

Kara testified she had used methamphetamine, but has been "clean" for seven years. She claimed she was not aware of Stephen's drug activities, but conceded, "the guns were her responsibility." She said, "I have not been the best housekeeper in the past, but we are doing really well now."

Christine Farro, a CWS worker, testified that the court should assume jurisdiction over the children. She said it is "hard to believe that "an intelligent and strong woman (Kara) didn't know about the risks that were in her home . . . ."

The court sustained the petition and found the children fell within its jurisdiction because they "were at a substantial risk of danger and injury . . . ." It found that Kara "did not step up to the plate and protect the children."

DISCUSSION

I. Mootness

CWS contends this appeal is moot. We granted its request to take judicial notice of the juvenile court's February 16, 2006, order which terminated the dependency proceedings in this case. Because there can be no further juvenile court proceedings on these petitions this appeal is "technically moot." (People v. Quinn (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.) But even on the merits, Kara does not prevail.

II. Substantial Evidence

Kara contends there is no substantial evidence to support the order taking jurisdiction over her children under section 300, subdivision (b). We disagree.

"Before courts . . . can exert jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness." (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the order and draw all reasonable inferences to support it. (Id. at p. 820.)

Here the court could reasonably infer the children had been exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm or illness. Drugs were sold and used at Kara's home. The children were exposed to mold, fungus, feces and other filthy conditions. Kara possessed numerous illegal weapons which were accessible to these minors.

Kara notes that a parent's prior acts do not support juvenile court jurisdiction without "'. . . some reason to believe the acts may continue in the future.' [Citations.]" (In re Rocco M., supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 824.) She notes that at the last home visit a social worker said "the home was clean and free from health and safety hazards . . . ."

But the CWS report noted "serious concerns" about Kara's understanding of her parental responsibilities. It said Kara admitted turning "a blind eye" to her husband's drug dealing. She exercised poor judgment by leaving weapons near the children. CWS was concerned that Kara viewed her role as being more of "a friend" to the children, than a parent. It recommended that Kara undergo a psychological evaluation and take parenting classes. Farro testified Kara had recently cooperated with CWS, but her efforts to reform had not "completely alleviated" the risks to the children. Haro said Kara refused to cooperate with CWS before the dependency petition was filed and the home's unsanitary conditions were the result of a long pattern of neglect. The evidence was sufficient.

We have reviewed Kara's remaining contentions and conclude she has not shown reversible error.

The orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

COFFEE, J.

PERREN, J.

Arthur A. Garcia, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Lawrence E. Fluharty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Stephen Shane Stark, County Counsel, and Laura Ornelaz, Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Apartment Manager Lawyers.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.