In re I.M. CA5
F072820
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- I.M., born to mother (a former dependent) and father, became subject to juvenile dependency proceedings after allegations of abuse and medical manipulation between 2013–2014; initial 2013 petition was dismissed.
- In October 2014, I.M. returned to father with facial/neck injuries and disclosures implicating mother’s household; police issued a restraining order and juvenile proceedings were initiated.
- The juvenile court adjudged I.M. a dependent in January 2015 and placed her with father, ordering family maintenance services for father and limited supervised visitation/services for mother.
- At the three- and six-month review period, the department recommended continued court supervision because parents had ongoing coparenting problems and concerns about mother’s partner and substance use.
- Father completed services and maintained a stable home; the court nonetheless continued dependency supervision, citing persistent co-parenting deficiencies and risk of regression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by continuing dependency jurisdiction at the review hearing | Continued supervision necessary because parents have not demonstrated adequate co-parenting; mother’s substance/partner issues persist, posing risk to child | Father argues he was effectively the custodial parent at the time the events occurred, so the stricter §364 standard applied and jurisdiction should be terminated because conditions no longer exist | Court held §366.21(e)(6) applied (child was placed with a previously noncustodial parent); review standard is whether supervision is still necessary, not whether original conditions persist; affirmed continuation of supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridget A. v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.4th 285 (explains family maintenance placement option and disposition choices)
- In re Janee W., 140 Cal.App.4th 1444 (distinguishes §364 and §366.21 standards for terminating jurisdiction)
- In re Sarah M., 233 Cal.App.3d 1486 (juvenile court need only determine need for continued supervision when child placed with noncustodial parent)
- In re Adrianna P., 166 Cal.App.4th 44 (discusses custodial vs. noncustodial parent characterization)
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (cited for legal context; discussed in relation to precedents)