In re A.T., D085053

Background

A.T. was born in May 2024 with developmental delays after Mother used methamphetamine during pregnancy; paternity was initially unclear.
The Agency removed A.T. from Mother's sole physical custody after repeated substance abuse and allegations of domestic violence between Mother and W.M. (Father).
Father sought custody of A.T. post-removal but had a history of domestic violence, failed engagement with support services, inconsistent cooperation with the Agency, and allowed Mother unsupervised access to another child in his care.
Father refused to fully participate in reunification or parenting services, exhibited anger management issues, and made barriers to A.T.'s special needs care during visitation.
The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that placement of A.T. with Father would be detrimental, and ordered continued placement with a relative (Gloria T.), granting Father liberal unsupervised visitation.
Father appealed the decision, disputing both the statutory basis for removal and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting detriment.

Issues

Issue	Father's Argument	Agency's Argument	Held
Whether § 361 or § 361.2 applies for removal/custody of A.T.	Section 361(d) should govern as it applies a higher threshold and requires finding no reasonable means to prevent removal.	Section 361.2 applies because Father was a noncustodial parent seeking placement post-removal from Mother.	Section 361.2 governs since Father did not have physical custody at disposition and sought placement under the court's supervision.
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that placing A.T. with Father would be detrimental	No clear and convincing evidence of detriment; domestic violence and cooperation issues are insufficient.	Ample evidence of detriment: ongoing risk from domestic violence, refusal to engage with services, continuing relationship with substance-abusing Mother, and disregard for A.T.’s medical needs.	Substantial evidence supports detriment finding; affirming removal and denying placement with Father.
Whether the court erred in not using the stricter removal standard of § 361(d)	The more rigorous standard should apply to protect parental rights.	Statutory language and context require application of § 361.2 for noncustodial parents.	No error; § 361.2 is controlling when requesting placement with a noncustodial parent.
Whether the evidence of Father’s cooperation and participation in services supports the court’s detriment ruling	Evidence does not show actual or probable harm; refusal to communicate is insufficient.	Pattern of blocking services, anger issues, and lack of support for A.T.’s needs pose demonstrable risk to child’s well-being.	Father’s conduct provided sufficient basis for finding detriment under § 361.2.

Key Cases Cited

In re Shelley J., 68 Cal.App.4th 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (standard for reviewing dispositional orders in light most favorable to order)
In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (court may consider past and present conduct in detriment analysis)
In re Patrick S., 218 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (legislative preference for placement with noncustodial parent unless detriment)
In re Abram L., 219 Cal.App.4th 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (requirement to apply § 361.2 for noncustodial parent’s request for placement)
In re Luke M., 107 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (clear and convincing evidence required for detriment finding under § 361.2)
In re Austin P., 118 Cal.App.4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (distinction between 'custody' and 'placement' in dependency context)
In re D’Anthony D., 230 Cal.App.4th 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (application of §§ 361 and 361.2 to custodial and noncustodial parents respectively)