Filed 8/17/26 In re G.T. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re G.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND D087955 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ15765)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alejandro Morales, Judge. Dismissed.
Neale B. Gold for Defendant and Appellant. Damon M. Brown, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Indra N. Bennett, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A.T. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order limiting her educational rights over her daughter, G.T., claiming the court abused its discretion in doing so. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) has moved to dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine citing Mother’s repeated violations of court orders and the fact she absconded with G.T. for nearly three years.
On this record, we agree with the Agency that dismissal of the appeal is a proper sanction under the disentitlement doctrine. However, even if we declined to dismiss the appeal, we would reject Mother’s claim of error on the merits and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 15, 2021, the Agency filed a petition alleging that two-year-old
G.T. fell within the scope of Welfare and Institutions Code,1 section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The Agency filed the petition after receiving a report that M.K. (Father) was arrested for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse. The ensuing investigation revealed several additional incidents of domestic violence between Mother and Father in G.T.’s presence.
At the detention hearing, the court detained G.T. with Mother. At the September 2021 adjudication and disposition hearing, the court sustained the petition and took jurisdiction of G.T. The court ordered G.T. placed with Mother with family maintenance services.
On January 5, 2022, the Agency received a referral from law enforcement regarding allegations that “[M]other had taken
1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3
methamphetamine several times per day in the last few days.” The social worker asked Mother to perform a drug test, but Mother did not comply with the request. The social worker visited Mother’s home multiple times and left her several voicemails requesting a return call, but Mother did not respond. Mother responded to a letter from the social worker and said she did not know about the referral until she received the letter and blamed the incident on her sister. The referral was closed as “unable to locate.”
On February 14, 2022, Mother traveled with G.T. to Minnesota to visit the maternal grandmother without the court’s permission. Mother informed the social worker that she and G.T. were staying at a hotel near maternal grandmother’s home but declined to provide the address to both the hotel and grandmother’s home. On February 18, the social worker interacted with G.T. through a video call and observed that G.T. appeared healthy and happy.
On March 3, the court held a special hearing to address Mother’s travel to Minnesota. Mother’s attorney stated that the maternal grandmother had fallen ill and Mother had to travel to Minnesota “due to her mother’s severe health problems and subsequent hospitalization.” G.T.’s attorney opposed Mother’s request for travel noting that Mother had not complied with the Agency’s requests to drug test and there were concerns she was actively using drugs. The Agency expressed concern with Mother’s lack of cooperation with the previous drug related referral and her lack of participation in any domestic violence program. The Agency requested that Mother return to San Diego as soon as possible to engage in services and address the drug use issues. Because Mother had maintained contact with the social worker and there were no “immediate apparent concerns regarding the safety of the child,” the court authorized Mother to remain in Minnesota with G.T. until March 15. The court ordered Mother to undergo a hair follicle test upon her
4
return and to maintain weekly video contact with the social worker and minor’s counsel or her investigator.
On March 8, 2022, the social worker texted Mother requesting the maternal grandmother’s address. Mother replied that maternal grandmother refused to provide it. The social worker explained that the court ordered that she provide G.T.’s address and asked whether G.T. was staying in the maternal grandmother’s home. Mother replied that they were staying in a nearby hotel. The social worker reiterated that the court needed the hotel’s address. Two days later, Mother replied stating that the hotel was called “extended stay,” but did not provide the address. The next day, the social worker texted Mother to ask whether G.T.’s medical and dental exams were up to date but did not receive a response.
On March 14, the court held a special hearing regarding Mother’s request to extend her and G.T.’s stay in Minnesota to March 18 so maternal grandmother could accompany them. G.T.’s attorney asked the court to order Mother to return to San Diego immediately as she had still not been drug tested and had failed to meet with the investigator as previously ordered. The court stated Mother had not made “a great deal of effort” to keep the court informed but would give Mother “one last opportunity” and extended her visit to March 18. The court further ordered that Mother provide the social worker with a copy of the purchased plane tickets for her and G.T. and to confirm their return to San Diego on March 18.
On March 17, the social worker asked Mother about her plans for returning to San Diego but did not receive a response. At the continued review hearing on March 21, Mother did not appear and did not answer the court’s phone calls. The Agency stated it had not been able to contact Mother and had no information on whether she returned to California as ordered and
5
therefore requested a bench warrant for Mother’s arrest and a pick-up and detain order for G.T. Mother’s counsel opposed issuance of a warrant but provided no additional information. G.T.’s counsel stated her investigators made “a few” unsuccessful attempts to reach Mother since the last hearing, had no information on G.T.’s whereabouts, and joined the request for a bench warrant for Mother and pick-up and detain order for G.T. The court issued a bench warrant for Mother’s arrest and a pick-up and detain order for G.T.
The social worker continued calling Mother, the maternal grandmother, and maternal aunt but received no response. The maternal grandmother had last informed the social worker that Mother may have left the country and gone to Belize.
On April 11, at the continued family maintenance review hearing, Mother appeared telephonically, denied drug use and stated she was not in Belize, and requested a continuance. G.T.’s attorney stated her investigator had not been able to reach Mother or have contact with G.T. and requested the court ask Mother to provide an address and phone number to verify G.T.’s well-being. G.T.’s attorney further requested that the bench warrant and pick-up and detain orders remain in place until Mother returned to San Diego with G.T. The Agency requested that the court inquire as to Mother’s location and order that Mother surrender G.T. to the child welfare services office that day. Mother’s counsel explained that Mother remained in Minnesota and was unable to return to San Diego because of financial hardship. The court stated that G.T. had been outside the jurisdiction of California without permission from the court and Mother had not been proactive in trying to have G.T. available to the Agency or minor’s counsel. As a result, the court stated the bench warrant for Mother’s arrest and the
6
pick-up and detain order for G.T. remained outstanding. Mother hung up before the hearing ended without providing an address or telephone number.
A week later, the court held an additional family maintenance review hearing. Mother was present telephonically. The social worker informed the court that he had contacted the Mankato, Minnesota police department, the Mankato child welfare services agency, local law enforcement, and reported G.T. missing to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. None of the agencies had been able to locate Mother or G.T. The court noted the gravity of the situation and ordered the bench warrant for Mother’s arrest and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. to remain in effect. Mother declined to provide her address and telephone number citing domestic violence concerns.
On September 7, the court heard Mother’s request to represent herself.
Given the outstanding pick-up and detain order for G.T. and the bench warrant for Mother’s arrest, the court required Mother to appear in person to make her motion. Mother explained she remained in Minnesota due to her mother’s illness and stated the earliest she could appear in person would be in one month. The court expressed its frustration with the repetitiveness of the situation and set a hearing for September 29. The court further instructed Mother to provide G.T.’s address to her attorney and assured Mother it would remain confidential.
The Agency reported that after the September 7 hearing, the social worker called the Mankato police department and asked for a welfare check on G.T. at the addresses Mother provided for maternal grandmother and maternal aunt. The Mankato police officer reported, “the family appeared to no longer reside at those addresses.”
7
On September 27, the court held a special hearing on Mother’s request to continue the hearing scheduled for September 29 because of financial hardship in purchasing airfare to return to San Diego. The court did not continue the next hearing and instructed the Agency to assist Mother in purchasing plane tickets to ensure her and G.T.’s personal appearance at the September 29 hearing.
After the hearing, the social worker received a series of text messages from Mother stating that G.T. was going to stay with Mother’s immediate family while she attended the hearing. The social worker reminded Mother that G.T. was also ordered to appear and there was a bench warrant for Mother’s arrest. The next day, Mother texted the social worker to inform her that G.T.’s last name was incorrect on the plane ticket, and she may not be able to get it corrected in time. Mother went on to say that the incorrect name, lack of transportation in San Diego, lack of a return flight to Minnesota, and not wanting to cause G.T. anxiety was all making her “lean[ ] more towards rescheduling.”
On September 29, Mother failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
The court noted the social worker had purchased plane tickets for Mother as instructed. The Agency asked the court to reissue the arrest warrant for Mother and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. The Agency informed the court that it had contacted the local district attorney’s office abduction unit, and the social worker had been in contact with the relevant police department and child welfare agency in Minnesota. The court ordered Mother to appear in person on October 31 and indicated Mother’s arrest warrant and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. remained outstanding.
On October 9, a Mankato police officer informed the social worker that maternal aunt claimed that Mother was in Mexico. On October 19, the social
8
worker spoke with Father who stated he did not know where G.T. was but that he saw her on WhatsApp on a regular basis and was not concerned about her well-being. The next day, the social worker texted Mother and told her to return to San Diego because the district attorney’s child abduction unit was handling the case. Mother stated that she had been attempting to appeal and that G.T. was safe and attending daycare. When the social worker asked for their current address, Mother replied they were in North Mankato, Minnesota, but refused to provide an exact address.
On October 31, Mother failed to appear for the family maintenance review hearing. Granting the Agency’s request, the court continued the matter for three months and ordered that the arrest warrant for Mother and pick-up and detain orders for G.T. remain outstanding.
On January 31, 2023, Mother appeared telephonically at the family maintenance review hearing, requested that the arrest warrant be recalled, and informed the court that she had made G.T. available for visits to Father and the social worker. The Agency agreed to a continuance to get further updates on G.T.’s location. When the court asked Mother for G.T.’s current location, Mother replied, “Mankato, Minnesota,” but refused to provide a street address citing safety concerns with Father. The court expressed its frustration with “[M]other’s manipulation of the situation,” continued the matter, and ordered the arrest warrant and pick-up and detain orders to remain outstanding.
On March 23, Mother texted the social worker and stated she had just returned to Minnesota and demanded a “case re-evaluation with all appropriate and relevant documents.” The social worker reminded Mother of the upcoming court hearing, warrant for her arrest, and the pick-up and detain order for G.T.
9
The court set continued review hearings at three-month intervals and Mother failed to appear at the next eight hearings. Each time, the court continued the matter for three months and kept the arrest warrant and pick- up and detain orders in place. At the October 25 hearing, the Agency informed the court that the D.A.’s office had been in contact with Mother, and they believed she was in Mexico. At the January 25, 2024 hearing, the court noted that G.T. had been missing for almost two years.
In May 2025, Mother left a voicemail for the social worker asking to “not to be harassed anymore” and stating that G.T. was doing well and finishing Kindergarten. When the social worker reminded her of the open dependency case, Mother claimed she had “100 percent custody” and threatened to sue for harassment.
In September, Father informed the Agency that G.T. was in the custody of the Mexican child welfare agency, DIF, in Playa del Carmen, Yucatan. The Agency coordinated with the district attorney’s office to facilitate G.T.’s return to the United States. G.T. returned to the United States on December 12.
On December 23, the Agency filed a petition pursuant to section 387 to remove G.T. from Mother’s custody. The next day, the court held a detention hearing at which Mother failed to appear. The court stated a prima facie showing had been made and the allegations in the petition were true. The court noted that Mother absconded with G.T. and that they were found in Playa del Carmen, Mexico after Mother was arrested for being “aggressive and threatening to someone who was trying to help her.” The court recalled the arrest warrant for Mother and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. G.T. was detained with the paternal grandparents.
10
At the January 26, 2026 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court ordered liberal supervised visitation for Mother and reminded Mother of the importance of updating her address.
On March 2, 2026, the court held the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court considered that Mother absconded with G.T. while under family maintenance and was found in Mexico by Mexican authorities when Mother was arrested for being under the influence. A physical evaluation revealed G.T. had 13 cavities and lacked education. G.T. also stated she had seen Mother drunk. As such, the court sustained the petition, made a true finding, and stated it believed G.T. should continue to be removed from the custody of the parents. The court additionally designated the paternal grandparents as holding educational rights over G.T. given that Mother was out of state and had previously absconded.
DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal Is Warranted Under the Doctrine of Disentitlement The Agency asks the court to dismiss Mother’s appeal under the disentitlement doctrine on the grounds that Mother “was willful, deceptive, and obstructive to an inexcusable degree” by “violating a multitude of court orders for nearly three years” and absconding to Mexico and hiding G.T. In opposing the motion to dismiss, Mother asserts that application of the disentitlement doctrine is not appropriate here because it is “reserved for the rarest cases of ongoing defiance of court authority” and Mother “does not stand in an attitude of contempt.” We disagree with Mother’s contention that the doctrine requires a current standing of contempt.
Under the disentitlement doctrine, an appellate court has the inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order. (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 474 (E.M.)) Although
11
most often applied where the appeal arises out of the very order the party has disobeyed, the doctrine “may also apply to cases in which the appellant has violated orders other than the one from which the appeal has been taken.” (Id. at p. 477; In re A.K. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 281, 286.)
Appellate disentitlement “ ‘is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied [to dismiss an appeal] when the balance of the equitable concerns make it a proper sanction.’ ” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 474.) The doctrine is based on the notion that “ ‘[i]t is contrary to the principles of justice to permit one who has flaunted the orders of the courts to seek judicial assistance.’ ” (Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 736, 756 (Findleton).) Importantly, “ ‘[a] formal judgment of contempt . . . is not a prerequisite to exercising [an appellate court’s] power to dismiss; rather, we may dismiss an appeal where there has been willful disobedience or obstructive tactics.’ ” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 477; accord Findleton, at p. 756; In re A.K., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 285–286.)
“In dependency cases, the doctrine has been applied only in cases of the most egregious conduct by the appellant, which frustrates the purpose of dependency law and makes it impossible to protect the child or act in the child's best interests.” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 474 citing In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1229 [father absconded with minor]; Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1299 [grandparents absconded with minor]; Adoption of Jacob C. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 617, 623–624 [mother abducted child].)
Thus, the disentitlement doctrine “applies to ‘egregious’ conduct that frustrates the juvenile court from carrying out its orders” whether or not appellant is in violation of the order from which they appeal. (E.M., supra,
12
204 Cal.App.4th at p. 477; see also Tms, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377, 379 [The court dismissed an appeal from a judgment based on the appellants’ violation of a separate postjudgment order].)
Here, Mother was participating in the dependency case, was receiving family maintenance services, and was aware of the investigation into allegations of her use of methamphetamine when she left the state with G.T. without notice to the court. When Mother failed to appear as ordered, the court issued an arrest warrant for Mother and a pick-up and detain order for G.T. Mother then provided a series of excuses for why she could not return to San Diego with G.T. while inconsistently appearing at hearings and consistently refusing to provide an accurate address for G.T. After approximately one year and a half of ongoing proceedings, Mother cut off communication with the court and over the course of the next two years she failed to appear at eight successive hearings. During that time, it is believed that Mother fled to Mexico with G.T. When Mother briefly reemerged, she left the social worker a message threatening to sue for harassment. After being missing for approximately three and a half years, G.T. was found in the custody of Mexican authorities and returned to the U.S.
By absconding to an unknown location in Minnesota and then to Mexico, Mother “effectively undermined and frustrated the core purpose of California’s dependency law—to protect and benefit the interests of children who are the subject of a section 300 petition.” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 476.) For nearly three years, Mother successfully avoided any supervision or oversight by either the juvenile court or the Agency. As a result, the juvenile court was unable to enforce its orders and extend its protection to G.T. Even after Mother and G.T. were eventually located, the Agency was unable to determine the conditions under which G.T. lived or the
13
education she received during the years she was missing. Because Mother was solely responsible for the juvenile court’s inability to fully implement the procedures intended to protect G.T., she forfeited her right to challenge the order from which she appeals. (See Findleton, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 756 “Unlike the parents in In re Claudia S. [(2005)] 131 Cal.App.4th 236, who took the children to Mexico before the filing of a section 300 petition and the entry of any orders by the juvenile court, Mother in this case was fully involved in and subject to the dependency proceedings prior to fleeing the jurisdiction . . . .” (E.M., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 478.) Although the bench warrant for her arrest has now been recalled, Mother was fully aware of it and the pick-up and detain order for G.T. were outstanding during the years they were missing. Under these circumstances, there is an adequate basis for determining that Mother’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant the application of the doctrine of disentitlement and dismissing her appeal.
B. Even If We Declined to Dismiss Mother’s Appeal, We Would Reject Her Claim of Error on the Merits.
Mother argues the court abused its discretion when it limited her educational rights and appointed the paternal grandparents. Mother contends that because she was “consistently visiting with [G.T.] and not impeding her education,” limiting her rights was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
Parents “have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in directing their children’s education” (In re R.W. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1276 (R.W.)), but the juvenile court may limit the right of a parent to make educational decisions on behalf of a child where necessary to protect
14
the child so long as any such limitations do not exceed those necessary to protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (a)(1).) A parent’s inability and unwillingness to make educational decisions are factors that are relevant to a determination of whether a limitation is “necessary to protect the child.” (Ibid.) “All educational decisions must be based on the best interests of the child.” (In re Samuel G. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 502, 510.)
In reviewing the juvenile court's decision to suspend a parent’s education decision-making rights, we apply an abuse of discretion standard, keeping in mind the focus of dependency proceedings is on the child rather than the parent. (R.W., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1277.)
The court considered the educational delays G.T. exhibited and the need for her caregivers to be able to “immediately respond to any concerns
such as [IEP].”2 The court noted Mother’s location out of state and the fact she had previously absconded. Based on its findings, the court limited Mother’s educational rights and appointed the paternal grandparents as the holders of G.T.’s educational rights.
Mother has not shown that the juvenile court abused its discretion in limiting her educational rights and appointing the paternal grandparents. The record includes contradicting information regarding G.T.’s educational history. The Agency’s reports show Mother was given referrals to enroll G.T. in the Head Start program, but Mother declined services and indicated she planned to pursue “private daycare” instead. Later, Mother told the social worker that G.T. was “attending school then privately tutored while [she]
2 An “IEP” is an individualized education program specifically designed to meet the educational needs of a student with disabilities. (In re Carl R. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1067.)
15
returned to work.” In her interview with Mexican authorities, Mother stated that G.T. attended a Montessori School from age three to five and then attended Kindergarten. Yet, G.T. told the paternal grandmother that she “was in two different daycares while her mom work[ed]” and that she had never been to school. The paternal grandmother observed that G.T. could not write her name at nearly seven years old. Moreover, the social worker reported that G.T. was “below grade level at school” and could not “yet read and [had] rudimentary writing skills.” Under these circumstances, the court could reasonably find that Mother was unable to make educational decisions in G.T.’s best interests and thus an order limiting her educational rights was necessary to protect G.T.
Mother next contends that the limitations the juvenile court placed on her educational rights exceed those necessary to protect G.T. and suggests that the court could have allowed her to “share them with the caregiver” in order to promote reunification and “keeping Mother involved in her child’s education.” As an initial matter, nothing in the court’s order precludes the paternal grandparents from providing information to or including Mother. However, Mother has a well-documented history of disappearing, failing to answer and return phone calls, and providing contradictory information regarding G.T.’s educational history. Such behaviors could impede the ability of others to discuss the available resources and best solutions for G.T. Given this history, we conclude that the juvenile court’s broad limitation of Mother’s educational rights, giving the paternal grandparents the authority to make educational decisions for G.T., was necessary. (See R.W., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1277.)
Finally, Mother argues that the juvenile court improperly considered the fact that she lives out of the county in limiting her educational rights.
16
While we agree with Mother that she could have participated in any necessary meetings by telephone, just as she did for the court hearing, this fact does not change our analysis. The underlying issue is Mother’s unreliable availability by phone and G.T.’s need for educational decisions to be made in a timely manner.
This evidence amply supported the court’s decision to limit Mother’s educational rights. Under the circumstances, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
BERMÚDEZ, J.