Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services v. Clifton L. (In re A.L.)

1

In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLIFTON L., Defendant and Appellant.

B311556

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

February 17, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No 20CCJP03434 Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CRANDALL, J. ^[*]

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the juvenile court made an adequate record of its communications with the Washington State juvenile court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA; Fam. Code ^[1] § 3400 et seq.) before asserting jurisdiction over A.L the child of father, Clifton L., who is incarcerated.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) took A.L. and her siblings into protective custody (based, in part, upon mother Karla E.'s ongoing substance abuse) during their trip from Franklin County, Washington, to Los Angeles, California. The juvenile court communicated on several occasions over a period of months with the Washington State juvenile court, ultimately taking jurisdiction of the children after learning that the Washington court had decided not to do so.

The juvenile court advised the parties and counsel on the record about its various discussions with the Washington State dependency court, including that the presiding judge of the dependency court for Franklin County had indicated an intention to decline jurisdiction, but the juvenile court could not remember or recite the name of the presiding juvenile judge in Franklin County. Father faults this omission as prejudicial error.

Although it would have been preferable for the juvenile court to identify the name of the specific Franklin County presiding dependency judge who made the declination decision, section 3410, subdivision (d) of the UCCJEA contains no command that it do so. Nor does Father point to any legislative history suggesting such a requirement.

Father has also failed to show that the omitted information was either necessary, or indeed sufficient, to appeal the Washington court's decision to decline jurisdiction. The fact that a Washington court might have evaluated Father's relatives for A.L.'s placement without relying on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is speculative and also fails to establish prejudice.

Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Family

Mother and Father are from Washington State. Their daughter, A.L., was born in 2014. At the time of A.L.'s birth, Mother tested positive for methamphetamines. Father also struggled with substance abuse and was incarcerated during A.L.'s early years. Most recently, Father was convicted for possession of methamphetamines and sentenced to five years in federal prison. He is serving his sentence in Pennsylvania and is expected to be released in 2023.

A.L. regularly spent time with her paternal relatives, including Father's adult daughter from a prior relationship, Athena, and A.L.'s paternal grandmother. At times, when Mother was absent, Athena cared for A.L.

From 2017 to 2019, Mother had two additional children with David S., Sr., sons David S. and D.S. David S., Sr. is not a party to this appeal.

B. Child Welfare History

Between 2009 and August 2019, there were at least eight child welfare referrals in Washington relating to A.L., her older maternal half-sister F.M., ^[2] or David S. and D.S. In each instance, the referral was closed with a notation of either no disposition or unfounded, and nothing in the record indicates that a dependency matter was ever filed in Washington State court. Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (Washington DCYF) did not identify any child welfare referrals after August 2019.

C. Events Leading to Detention in California

In 2019, Mother began to date Pedro L. Pedro also had substance abuse issues, and in June 2020, Mother, Pedro, A.L., David S., and D.S. traveled by car from Washington to California to check Pedro into a drug treatment program. They stayed with Pedro's family in La Puente, California. On June 17, 2020, police responded to a report of child abuse. The Department also received information that Mother and Pedro appeared to be using drugs.^[3]

D. The Petition

On June 23, 2020, the Department detained the children. On June 25, 2020, the Department filed a section 300 petition. The Department alleged the children came within the juvenile court's jurisdiction pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) based upon Mother striking A.L.; Mother's substance abuse; Pedro's substance abuse, history of mental and emotional issues, and forcing A.L. to eat hot chilies; and Mother permitting the children to be driven from Washington to California without securing them in car seats.

On June 30, 2020, the juvenile court found Father was the presumed father of A.L. On September 16, 2020, DCFS filed an amended petition, alleging A.L. has suffered or there was a substantial risk she would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of her Father's inability to care for her due to his history of substance abuse. On October 30, 2020, the court appointed counsel for Father.^[4]

E. Proceedings Relating to the UCCJEA

On June 30, 2020, during an initial hearing, Mother and counsel for the children agreed that the juvenile court would need to speak with a court in Franklin County, Washington to determine whether it would assert subject matter jurisdiction.

On September 29, 2020, the juvenile court stated on the record that it reached out to the Franklin County court administrator to discover whether Washington would assert jurisdiction. The juvenile court had not received a response to its inquiry and stated it would contact the Franklin County court again.

During a November 6, 2020 progress report hearing, the juvenile court stated it "had been informed previously by Commissioner [Pamela E.] Peterson . . . that she had spoken with the presiding judge of Franklin County, and that they were going to be asserting jurisdiction in the state of Washington over this matter. However, it appears that [county counsel] . . . reached out to . . . her like agency in Washington . . ., and has received conflicting information.^[5] . . . So . . . I'm going to once again reach out to Commissioner Peterson and see what the discrepancy is . . . ." The juvenile court asked whether any counsel wished to be heard further on the matter. Father's counsel was present but remained silent.

On November 13, 2020, the juvenile court informed the parties that it called the Washington court twice that week, advised the staff in Washington that it had a progress report hearing that day and had set the matter for adjudication on November 30, 2020, and asked for a return call.^[6] The juvenile court concluded, "unless I hear back from them, I'm assuming that this matter will be set for adjudication, it will go forward on November the 30th at 8:30 a.m. in this department" and "our court will take jurisdiction, or retain jurisdiction, since Washington doesn't seem to want it." Father's counsel, present at the hearing, did not raise any objection or ask to be heard as to why the matter should proceed in Washington.

The juvenile court continued the November 30, 2020 adjudication hearing. In the meantime, according to a January 6, 2021, last minute information, on December 18, 2020, county counsel emailed the Department and conveyed that the juvenile court had spoken with Commissioner Peterson. Washington declined to open a case for the children. A copy of this email is not in the appellate record.

Father and his counsel appeared for the adjudication hearing scheduled for February 25, 2021. Due to scheduling issues for both Mother's and Father's attorneys, the juvenile court continued the matter to March 12, 2021. The court indicated it would make its UCCJEA record on that date. Notwithstanding that it was clear the juvenile court intended to move forward with adjudication, Father did not raise any objection to it taking subject matter jurisdiction.

On March 12, 2021, the juvenile court stated: "There was a long and involved discussion with the state of Washington as to whether or not they were seeking jurisdiction over this matter.

Prior to my taking over the bench in [this] department in August, I believe that previous contact with the Washington court in Franklin County had been initiated by my predecessor Judge Nguyen. And I did see in the court notes that Judge Nguyen had initiated contact with the juvenile dependency bench in Franklin County . . . . I also reached out to Franklin County. There was a lot of delay in hearing back from them. On October 26, 2020, I did have an ex parte with the lawyers, and I advised that Commissioner Peterson . . . in Franklin County, Washington . . . informed [this court] that [the] state of Washington was going to assert jurisdiction [over] this dependency matter, as at that time Washington was going to claim home state jurisdiction. On November 6[, ] there was an off-the-record conference held with the court again and counsel concerning emails that the [D]epartment . . . had received from the attorney general in the state of Washington, and they were attached to the [last minute information] for that date, indicating that once again I was going to reach out to the court in the state of Washington, which I...