L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. S.L. (In re Z.L.)

1

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

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

B334307

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

September 30, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 23LJJP00251 Debra L. Gonzales, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WEINGART, J.

Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Service (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 300 seeking to have the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over Z.L. (born 2014). DCFS based the petition on Z.L.'s mother S.L. (Mother) leaving Z.L. and her younger siblings for an extended period of days with a friend who hit the children and used drugs in their presence while caring for them. Feeling unsafe, the children ran away from the friend's house, and were found walking (some including Z.L., without shoes) along a freeway in the desert in approximately 100-degree heat.

The juvenile court found that Z.L. was a child described in section 300 and declared her a dependent of the court. In asserting jurisdiction over Z.L., the court found there was a substantial risk that she would suffer serious physical harm as the result of not being adequately supervised and protected by Mother and Bernadette A., Z.L.'s maternal grandmother (MGM), who had been the child's legal guardian for more than six years.

Mother appeals, contending there is no substantial evidence supporting the court's assertion of jurisdiction over Z.L DCFS contends that Mother lacks standing to appeal because MGM was and is Z.L.'s legal guardian. We reject this contention because Mother has an interest in protecting her parental rights, which are merely suspended during the guardianship but could possibly be permanently terminated in the dependency proceedings.

As to the merits of Mother's appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings, and therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Family

In July 2023, Mother and her four children-Z.L., son J.W. (born 2016), daughter A.L. (born 2019), and daughter Sa.L. (born 2020)-lived with MGM. Mother reported that L.W. (Father) was the father of Z.L., J.W., and A.L., and that J.R. was the father of Sa.L. Neither Father nor J.R. participated in the dependency proceedings prior to the jurisdiction hearing at issue, and neither is a party to this appeal.

B. DCFS History

1. Guardianship

According to DCFS, Mother had been a regional center client as a child and was "noted to be intellectually challenged." At some unknown time before Mother was involved in dependency proceedings in 2017, MGM became Z.L's legal guardian pursuant to a probate court proceeding.

2. 2017 Dependency Proceeding

The juvenile court found that Z.L. was a child described in section 300 in August 2017, as a result of Mother and Father engaging in a violent altercation while Z.L. was in the home.

MGM was found to have failed to protect Z.L. by allowing Mother and Father unlimited access to the child despite knowing of their history of domestic violence. The juvenile court thereafter placed Z.L. and MGM (as MGM was Z.L.'s legal guardian) on a program of supervision by DCFS pursuant to section 360, subdivision (b).^[2]

3. The Children Are Found Walking Along a Freeway Unsupervised in Approximately 100-degree Heat

On Sunday, July 23, 2023, DCFS received a referral that a sheriff's deputy responding to calls by concerned citizens had found Z.L., her siblings, and a girl named Charlene W. walking unsupervised along a freeway in the desert on a hot day. The children were only partially dressed, and some had no shoes. At around 4:30 p.m. that day, a social worker spoke with the deputy, who reported that he had found the children at around 11:49 a.m., the children were still with him, the children did not know their parents' whereabouts, their address, their telephone number, or their last names, and no one had reported the children missing.

That evening, the social worker interviewed A.L. and Sa.L. at the sheriff's station. Both children's hair was matted, their faces, hands, and feet were dirty, they were not wearing any underwear, and their clothing was ill-fitting. A.L. reported she did not know where her parents were, and that she had been staying with Charlene W.'s mother, Monique G.,^[3] but could not say for how long. According to A.L., she and her siblings ran away from Monique G.'s house because they did not want to be there. The social worker learned of Mother's address and drove there with A.L. and Sa.L.; the social worker honked the horn, called out to Mother, and called Mother on the phone, but was unable to contact her.

Later that evening, the social worker interviewed Z.L., J.W., and Charlene W. at a medical clinic. Z.L.'s clothes were dirty and ill-fitting, she was not wearing any shoes or underwear, and her hair was matted. Z.L. reported that she and her siblings had been at Monique G.'s house for two weeks and she did not know when Mother was going to return. According to Z.L., the children ran away from the house because Monique G. had hit them several times all over their bodies and Z.L. did not feel safe. She stated that Monique G. was selling marijuana which she kept in a white bag, and she and her boyfriend Greg smoked white rocks in a glass pipe.

J.W. had dirty, ill-fitting clothes and dirty shoes, and was not wearing underwear. He stated that he and his siblings had been at Monique G.'s house for two days and did not know when Mother would come back for them. J.W. also stated that he and his siblings ran away because Monique G. hit them.

Charlene W., then aged five, stated that the other children had been staying with her mother (Monique G.) for the past couple of days. She initially confirmed that her mother had hit Z.L. and the other children, but then denied it. She reported that her mother sells "weed" and also keeps drugs for herself. Charlene initially confirmed that her mother smokes from a glass pipe, but then denied it.

4. DCFS Interviews Monique G. and Mother

At 12:30 a.m. (on July 24), the social worker spoke with Monique G. over the phone. Monique G. reported she had been taking care of Z.L. and her siblings for the past two days but had not heard from Mother. According to Monique G., the children left the home while she was asleep during the daytime. When she woke up at 6:00 p.m., Greg told her the children were asleep in their room. Monique G. could not say when she noticed the children were missing or explain why she had not immediately called the police when she did make the discovery. Monique G. denied that she sold marijuana or used illicit drugs.

That evening, the social worker spoke with Mother twice over the phone. Mother indicated she asked Monique G. to watch the children for two days because she was having her house painted and MGM and a maternal aunt were not available to take care of the children. She had known Monique G. for a year, having met through a mutual friend.

According to Mother, she dropped off the children at Monique G.'s house that Friday and called Monique G. on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. to announce she was going to pick the children up. That was when Monique G. told her the children were missing. Mother then went to Monique G.'s house and searched the neighborhood. Mother called 911 twice, and during the second call learned that the children had been picked up by DCFS. Mother did not contact DCFS until 10:00 a.m. the next day, and claimed the delay was because she became distraught and then slept in her car.

Mother denied knowing that Monique G. was hitting the children or using and selling drugs. Mother stated this was the first time she had asked Monique G. to care for the children.

5. DCFS Attempts to Contact MGM

On Tuesday (July 25), the social worker attempted to contact MGM, but was only able to speak with Mother, who reported that MGM lived in the same home with Mother and the children. MGM did not respond to DCFS's effort to speak with her.

C. Petition and Detention

On July 25, 2023, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Z.L. alleging that MGM, as Z.L.'s legal guardian, "made an inappropriate plan of care for the child resulting in the child being in the care of [M]other," who, in turn, "made an inappropriate plan of care for the child" by leaving Z.L. with Monique G., who exposed Z.L. to drugs and struck her repeatedly, causing Z.L. to run away from Monique G.'s home and walk on the side of a freeway in the desert in 101 degrees heat without shoes. DCFS asserted claims under subdivision (b)(1)(A) of section 300 based on MGM's and Mother's alleged inability or failure to supervise or protect Z.L., and a claim under subdivision (j) of section 300 based on Mother's endangering Z.L.'s siblings by leaving them with Monique G.

The juvenile court held a detention hearing on July 26, 2023. MGM appeared; Mother and Father did not. MGM, through her counsel, denied the allegations. Counsel indicated that MGM "was under the impression that [Z.L.] was having an extended sleepover with her siblings and [M]other at [Monique G.]'s home." According to counsel, MGM had spent time with Monique G. and "had no indication or reason to know that allowing [Z.L.] to spend time at Monique[ G.]'s home would be problematic." Counsel stated that MGM and Z.L. lived together with Mother and...