In re Zachary G.
Filed 3/20/07 In re Zachary G. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
In re ZACHARY G., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B193107 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK62452) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAWN G., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Marpet, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
In May 2006, the dependency court found that Dawn G. had an unresolved drug problem rendering her periodically unable to care for her four children, and that her acrimonious relationship with the father of her two youngest children created a detrimental environment for all four children. In August, the court removed Dawns children from her care and directed Dawn to enroll in various programs. Dawn appeals from these orders. We affirm.
FACTS
In August 1995, Zachary G. was born to Dawn (then 15 years old) and Michael B. (then 16). Michael (now an electrician) has submitted to the dependency courts jurisdiction as a non-offending parent.
In August 1997, Brianna H. was born to Dawn (then 17) and Florencio H. (who is currently incarcerated). In 1999 and 2000, the Department of Children and Family Services was informed that Dawn was neglecting Zachary and Brianna, but the Department found no grounds to take action. Florencios mother, Jody H., was the childrens primary caregiver.
In January 2003, Nevaeh G. was born to Dawn and Raymond M., and in January 2004, Nicholas G. was born to Dawn and Raymond. Jody cared for these two children as well as their older half-siblings. Dawn lived with Jody and Raymond was frequently present in the home.
The Department became involved in December 2005 and January 2006, based on reports that Dawn and Raymond were involved in gang activity, used drugs, and were involved in frequent altercations. On February 1, Jody (representing herself) filed a petition in which she asked the probate court to appoint her the legal guardian of all four children. On February 8, the probate court appointed Jody as the temporary guardian of the children.
On February 22, the Department filed a petition alleging that Jody had created a detrimental home environment by allowing Dawn, who had a known history of drug abuse, to have unlimited unmonitored access to the children. The dependency court permitted the children to remain with Jody, but issued orders requiring Dawn and Raymond to stay away from Jodys home.
In April, the Department filed an amended petition, alleging that Dawn was an offending parent due to her drug abuse and the domestic discord. A contested jurisdictional hearing was set for May 19, then continued to May 23, but Dawn did not appear for the hearing. In her absence, her lawyer and the Department work[ed] out an agreement to amend the petition, and to have Dawn submit the jurisdictional issue based on the Departments reports. The dependency court then sustained two counts (that Dawn had an unresolved drug problem that rendered her periodically unable to care for the children, and that she and Raymond created a detrimental home environment for the children by reason of family discord, verbal threats, and physical violence). A dispositional hearing was set for August 11.
Dawn did not appear for the August 11 dispositional hearing. In her absence, the dependency court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the childrens physical health, removed the children from Dawns custody, placed them with Jody, and renewed the stay-away orders. The court ordered Dawn to enroll in a drug rehabilitation program with random testing, parent education classes, and individual counseling.
DISCUSSION
I.
Dawn contends the issues involving her had been resolved by the time of the August hearing, so that the dependency court erred when it asserted jurisdiction over the children at a combined jurisdictional and disposition hearing. She contends the jurisdictional orders are not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
The jurisdictional orders were not issued on August 11, having already been issued on May 23, when Dawns lawyer and the Department agreed to amend the petition by interlineation and submitted to the court based on the Departments reports. The court then made its findings as described above, all of which are supported by substantial evidence (from Dawns children and from her own grandmother as well as from Zacharys father) of the circumstances extant on May 23 -- that Dawn and Raymond regularly used illegal drugs, and that Dawn had been arrested on drug charges in October 2001 and August 2003. Dawn refused to appear for drug testing. There is similar and substantial evidence supporting the finding of domestic discord (although this point is moot in light of the drug abuse findings).
In short, Dawns argument is nothing more than a request to us to reweigh the evidence, and that we will not do. (In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212; In re Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377, 388; In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820, 824.)
II.
Dawn contends the dispositional orders cannot stand because the Department did not show by clear and convincing evidence that there was a danger to the children. We disagree.
Although Dawn is correct that the dependency court had to find by clear and convincing evidence that Dawn posed a danger to the children (In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169; In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522, 525), the issue on this appeal is whether the dependency courts orders are supported by substantial evidence (In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1427; In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654.) They are.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that the children needed to be protected from Dawn because she is an unrepentant drug abuser whose acrimonious relationship with Raymond created a detrimental home environment -- and because there isnt a shred of evidence that Dawn was willing to address her problems. No more was required.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
VOGEL, Acting P.J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
JACKSON, J.*
______________________________________________________________________________
*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
