Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services began this case in April 2024 after receiving a report that 15-year-old J.L. and her mother were fighting. According to the opinion, the mother repeatedly hit J.L. until J.L.’s adult brother intervened, and the mother then pulled a knife on him and threatened to stab him. J.L., her brother, and their five minor siblings left the house. The Department had previously received at least 19 referrals alleging physical abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect; most were inconclusive, but at least three allegations were substantiated. The juvenile court subsequently removed J.L. and her five minor siblings from their mother’s custody and placed them with LaShawn W., the mother’s godmother and a nonrelated extended family member.
At the July 2024 jurisdiction hearing, the Department, mother, and children settled the allegations. The mother pleaded no contest to allegations that her conduct endangered the six children and placed them at risk of serious physical harm, while the Department dismissed the remaining allegations. After confirming that she understood the agreement, had reviewed it with counsel, and had entered the plea freely and voluntarily, the court found a factual and legal basis for it. The court sustained the allegations, found that Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 described the children and that returning them to the mother would be detrimental, and ordered reunification services and monitored visitation. The mother later completed substance-abuse treatment, began counseling, and had successful monitored visits with her three youngest children, but J.L. and her two older siblings consistently refused visits.
The Court’s Holding
By June 2025, the three youngest children had returned to the mother. In July, the court terminated jurisdiction over them and granted her sole custody. It terminated reunification services for the older children, set a permanency-planning hearing for J.L., and contemplated guardianship with LaShawn W. The Department’s October report described a safe, stable, and loving home and agreement between LaShawn W. and J.L. about guardianship. Over the mother’s objection and request to reinstate reunification services, the juvenile court heard argument and her testimony, found guardianship to be in J.L.’s best interest, and appointed LaShawn W. as J.L.’s legal guardian. The mother appealed those findings and orders.
The mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under In re Phoenix H. stating that he could find no colorable arguments. Counsel informed her of that conclusion and of the Court of Appeal’s discretion to permit a supplemental brief, and made the record available to her. Her supplemental brief criticized her appointed lawyers, accused the Department of fabricating documents, denied hurting her children, and attached letters concerning drug treatment and counseling. The Court of Appeal explained that it presumes an appealed judgment correct, places the burden of establishing error on the appellant, and may dismiss when that burden is not met. Unlike in a criminal case, it had no duty to independently review the record. Because the mother presented no arguable challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and no other arguable issue, the court dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A parent appealing a juvenile guardianship order bears the burden of establishing error, and the appellate court presumes the appealed judgment is correct.
- Under the procedure drawn from In re Phoenix H., the Court of Appeal has no criminal-case-style duty to independently search the dependency record for arguable issues.
- The mother’s supplemental brief did not identify an arguable sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge or any other arguable issue concerning the guardianship findings and orders.
- The appellate disposition was dismissal of the mother’s appeal, following the juvenile court’s best-interest finding and appointment of LaShawn W. as J.L.’s legal guardian.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the no-merit procedure for juvenile dependency appeals to a mother’s challenge to permanency-planning findings and a guardianship order. It distinguishes that procedure from independent appellate review in criminal cases and ties dismissal to the appellant’s failure to identify error, rather than announcing a new evidentiary standard for guardianship.
The opinion also situates the appeal within a divided family outcome: jurisdiction had ended for the three youngest children, who were in their mother’s sole custody, while J.L. remained with LaShawn W. and proceeded to legal guardianship. The appellate court did not order renewed reunification services or otherwise alter the juvenile court’s plan.