United States v. Christian Jose Landeros Mendez
24-11102
11th Cir.
Dec 10, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. L.T. was born in April 2024, prompting hospital staff to express concerns about mother V.A.'s ability to care for him due to her severe mental health symptoms, including disassociative thoughts [lines="35-41"].
  2. Following L.T.'s birth, he was transferred to the NICU, and mother was placed under psychiatric care, showing a history of mental health issues [lines="47-51"].
  3. The Department of Human Services filed a section 300 petition on May 1, asserting mother’s mental health problems prevented her from caring for L.T. [lines="63-70"].
  4. Mother repeatedly refused to attend hearings and failed to comply with court orders to submit to a psychological evaluation, leading to delays in proceedings [lines="171-199"].
  5. The juvenile court bypassed reunification services citing mother’s mental disability, as she failed to demonstrate compliance with required services, and scheduled a permanency planning hearing [lines="199-204"].

Issues

  1. Whether the juvenile court erred in bypassing reunification services pursuant to section 361.5(b)(2). [lines="208-209"].
  2. Whether the disentitlement doctrine applies to deny reunification services due to mother's refusal to comply with court-ordered psychological evaluations. [lines="215-216"].

Holdings

  1. The court found no error in bypassing reunification services, affirming that the department could deny services to a parent who refuses to comply with valid court orders necessary for their psychological evaluation [lines="211-212"].
  2. The court affirmed the application of the disentitlement doctrine, concluding that mother’s refusal to participate made it impossible for the court to assess her capability to utilize reunification services [lines="268-269"].

OPINION

*2 Before J ORDAN , R OSENBAUM , AND A BUDU , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Sheryl Joyce Lowenthal, counsel for Christian Jose Landeros Mendez in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s overall assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent exam- ination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Landeros Men- dez’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED .