In re G.C. CA2/7
B306907
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Four children (ages 9, 7, 5, 6 months) were in mother E.P.’s custody after domestic violence incidents involving her partner D.S.; Department filed dependency petition and detained the children from E.P. for noncompliance with a restraining order.
- Anthony is the father of the three older children; he was out of regular contact for ~2018–early 2020 but, after being located, expressed willingness to assume custody.
- At disposition the juvenile court removed the children from E.P., denied Anthony custody under Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.2(a) (finding placement with Anthony would be detrimental), and ordered Anthony to attend parenting classes and have monitored visitation.
- The court relied primarily on Anthony’s limited relationship with the children and the children’s statements that they had not spoken with him in a long time.
- Eight months later the juvenile court returned the children to E.P. and ordered enhancement services for Anthony; Anthony appealed the § 361.2(a) detriment finding and the dispositional orders.
- The Court of Appeal held the § 361.2(a) detriment finding lacked clear and convincing/substantial evidence and reversed that part of the disposition, but affirmed the parenting-education and monitored-visitation orders and found those within the court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding that placing children with Anthony would be detrimental (WIC §361.2(a)) | Department: Anthony had effectively abandoned the children, lacked stable housing/plan, limited relationship, and unresolved DV history — placement would harm children | Anthony: No clear-and-convincing evidence of detriment; prior DV allegation was dismissed; pandemic limited contact; no proof he cannot care for children | Reversed — court’s detriment finding was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; lack of relationship alone insufficient |
| Whether court abused discretion ordering parenting education | Department: Classes necessary given Anthony’s limited involvement and children’s medical/behavioral needs | Anthony: Order was abusive because prior DV allegation was dismissed; he had some history caring for children | Affirmed — §362(a) grants broad discretion to impose reasonable dispositional orders; classes were appropriate |
| Whether court erred in ordering monitored visitation | Department: Monitoring protects children and assists Anthony in managing children’s needs | Anthony: Challenges order on appeal (but did not object below) | Forfeited (no proper objection); alternatively, no abuse of discretion — monitoring justified to protect children |
| Whether appeal on detriment finding is moot after children returned to mother | Department: Return to mother moots Anthony’s challenge to the §361.2(a) order | Anthony: Finding can prejudice his parental rights in future proceedings; relief is still effective | Not moot — finding could affect future proceedings (e.g., §366.26), so review appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.C., 54 Cal.App.5th 38 (2020) (placement with noncustodial parent required unless placement would be detrimental)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) (standard for clear-and-convincing proof described as high probability)
- In re C.M., 232 Cal.App.4th 1394 (2014) (child wishes and lack of established relationship are not dispositive for detriment finding)
- In re Patrick S., 218 Cal.App.4th 1254 (2013) (clear-and-convincing standard applies to detriment findings under §361.2)
- In re John M., 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 (2006) (parental absence alone insufficient to show detriment)
- In re Abram L., 219 Cal.App.4th 452 (2013) (unproven allegations or dismissed claims cannot support detriment finding)
- In re D.P., 44 Cal.App.5th 1058 (2020) (juvenile court has broad discretion over dispositional orders, including visitation)