In re Ar.M. CA4/1
D078995
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2021Background:
- Two children (Ar.M., 16; Al.M., 13) became juvenile dependents after repeated hospitalizations, suicidal ideation, and self-harm tied to parental conflict; Agency filed §300(c) petitions for severe emotional damage.
- Children were initially detained and ultimately placed with Mother; both children largely ceased contact with Father and said returning to him would harm their mental health.
- Agency recommended continued placement with Mother; it expressed concern Father minimized the children’s mental-health needs and planned to move them away from existing services and supports.
- Father completed some services but repeatedly denied responsibility, minimized the children’s condition, and would have had the paternal uncle (accused by Ar.M. of past sexual abuse) in the same home if children lived with him.
- At the remanded May 2021 disposition hearing the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence (§361(c)) that removal from Father was necessary and that reasonable efforts had been made to avoid removal; ordered placement with Mother and liberal unsupervised visitation for Father. Appeal affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports removal under §361(c) | Agency: children were at substantial risk of further self-harm if returned to Father; Father minimized their needs and lacked insight; no reasonable means to protect children without removal | Father: he completed services, improved coparenting, and there was no proof (outside Agency/children opinions) of substantial danger | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports removal by clear and convincing standard given children’s hospitalizations, their statements, Father’s minimization, and risk from paternal uncle and uprooting. |
| Whether Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent removal (§361(e)) | Agency: provided family maintenance services, case plan (therapy, coparenting); Father did not fully engage or gain necessary insight | Father: Agency did not do enough to prevent removal | Court: Affirmed — record shows reasonable, not perfect, efforts (services offered; Father failed to obtain needed insight/participation). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (2011) (juvenile court discretion in disposition; removal proper for parental inability to provide care)
- In re Cole C., 174 Cal.App.4th 900 (2009) (removal need not prove actual harm; focuses on averting future harm)
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (1996) (§361(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger and no reasonable alternatives)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) (standard for evaluating whether record supports findings under clear and convincing evidence)
- In re V.L., 54 Cal.App.5th 147 (2020) (application of Conservatorship of O.B. standard to juvenile removal findings)
- In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (1997) (appellate deference: affirm if supported by substantial evidence despite contrary inferences)
- In re Gabriel K., 203 Cal.App.4th 188 (2012) (parental failure to acknowledge risk undermines prospect of correction)
- In re A.F., 3 Cal.App.5th 283 (2016) (parent’s lack of recognition of risk supports removal)