Christi F. v. Super. Ct. CA4/1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Christi F. v. Super. Ct. CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Jun 20, 2013 No. D063614Unpublished
Filed 6/20/13 Christi F. v. Super. Ct. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTI F., D063614
Petitioner, (Imperial County Super. Ct. No. JJP02537) v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IMPERIAL COUNTY,
Respondent;
IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
PROCEEDINGS in mandate after referral to a Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.261 hearing. Christopher W. Yeager, Judge. Petition denied.
Law Offices of Thomas W. Storey and Thomas W. Storey for Petitioner.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Michael L. Rood, County Counsel, Geoffrey P. Holbrook and Haislip W. Hayes
III, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Imperial County Department of
Social Services.
Timothy J. Reilly, State Public Defender, Kelly Ranasinghe, Deputy State Public
Defender, for Real Party in Interest Alexis H., a Minor.
Christi F. seeks review of a juvenile court order setting a hearing under section
366.26. She contends the court improperly applied the disentitlement doctrine, which
Cal.2d 271, 277.) In the context of family and dependency cases, the disentitlement
doctrine has been applied to appellate proceedings in which the party seeking relief has
abducted the child in violation of trial court orders. (Kamelia S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1224 [appellate court dismissed appeal of father who had absconded with his child];
Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299 [grandparents who took
child out of country in violation of guardianship orders could not appeal denial of their
guardianship petition].) In trial court proceedings, "[t]he doctrine has also been applied
to conduct that frustrates the ability of a party to obtain information it needs to protect its
rights." (In re Claudia S., at p. 245, citing In re C.C. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 76, 85, 86
[mother's refusal to participate in a psychological evaluation interfered with the child's
legal right to have her case proceed to the permanency planning stage].) In Adoption of
Jacob C. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 617, the reviewing court affirmed the juvenile court's
application of the disentitlement doctrine to bar a fugitive mother who had abducted one
of her children from challenging the stepmother's petition to terminate her rights to
another child unless the mother personally appeared in the action. (Id. at pp. 617, 623-
624.)
8
"The disentitlement doctrine has been applied to deprive a party of the right to
present a defense as a result of the litigant's violation of the processes of the court,
withholding of evidence, defaulting on court-imposed obligations, disobeying court
orders, or other actions justifying a judgment of default. [Citation.]" (Adoption of Jacob
C., supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 624.) Here, the record contains substantial evidence to
support the juvenile court's findings that Christi hid Alexis from the court in another
state, repeatedly lied to the social worker about Alexis's whereabouts and well-being,
provided methamphetamine and other drugs to Alexis and denied Alexis access to
appropriate psychiatric care and support services. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2
Cal.App.4th 538, 545 [appellate court reviews the evidence most favorably to the
prevailing party and indulges in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the
court's ruling].) The juvenile court reasonably determined that Christi withheld crucial
evidence from the court and thwarted the purpose of the juvenile court proceedings,
which is to protect the child from further harm. (§ 300.2.) On this record, we cannot
conclude the juvenile court erred when it barred Christi from presenting a defense at the
12-month review hearing under the disentitlement doctrine.
Further, error, if any, is harmless. Christi presented a defense and cross-examined
the social worker during the hearing on the application of the disentitlement doctrine in
which she denied the social worker's allegations and presented her side of the story. The
juvenile court did not credit her testimony. In view of Alexis's severe mental health
problems and substance abuse addiction, which were exacerbated by Christi's conduct,
Christi's severe and protracted methamphetamine use and lack of progress in her court-
9
ordered treatment plan, it is not reasonably probable that Christi would have obtained a
more favorable result had she formally presented a defense at the 12-month review
hearing. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in applying the disentitlement doctrine to bar a mother from presenting a defense at a 12-month review hearing after she actively concealed her child from the court and social services.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court properly applied the disentitlement doctrine to prevent a parent from presenting a defense at a 12-month review hearing.
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The disentitlement doctrine has been applied to deprive a party of the right to present a defense as a result of the litigant's violation of the processes of the court”
“On this record, we cannot conclude the juvenile court erred when it barred Christi from presenting a defense at the 12-month review hearing under the disentitlement doctrine.”