B335063
Cal. Ct. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Father (Jeremiah F.) and Mother (Amanda F.) are divorced parents of J.F. and A.F.; Father initially had sole legal and physical custody due to a restraining order against Mother.
- In July 2023, DCFS investigated Father for medical neglect after he removed J.F., who suffers from asthma, from the hospital against medical advice during a serious asthma attack.
- Father repeatedly refused to cooperate with DCFS and denied access to his residence for safety checks; he also failed to provide requested medical information about the children.
- Juvenile court detained the children from Father, placed them with Mother (the non-offending parent), and provided Father only monitored visitation.
- At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, the juvenile court found substantial evidence of medical neglect, declined Father's Marsden motion to replace counsel, rejected his character references as evidence, and terminated jurisdiction with a custody order in favor of Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DCFS/Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to substitute counsel | Breakdown in communication, lack of guidance/preparation by appointed counsel | Attorney was experienced; no irreconcilable conflict shown | No abuse of discretion; motion properly denied |
| Exclusion of character reference evidence | Letters showed Father's good character and fitness | Letters were not relevant and authors were unavailable for cross-examination | No abuse of discretion; exclusion upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence (jurisdiction/removal) | Insufficient to show past or present risk; no medical neglect | Substantial evidence of medical neglect and ongoing risk to children | Substantial evidence supported findings/removal |
| Terminating jurisdiction at disposition | Required continued supervision before termination under § 361.2 | Court had discretion to terminate if no ongoing risk | Proper application of § 361.2; termination affirmed |
| Supervised visitation order | Unduly restrictive—no legal/factual basis | Necessary for children’s safety given Father's actions and lack of insight | Supervised visitation order proper; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (Cal. 1970) (establishes standard for substituting appointed counsel in criminal and, by analogy, dependency proceedings)
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2013) (sets standard for substantial evidence review in dependency)
- In re T.W., 214 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (removal of child focuses on averting harm, not requiring actual harm)
- In re Jaden E., 229 Cal.App.4th 1277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (court options under § 361.2 when placing children with noncustodial parent)
- In re Nicholas H., 112 Cal.App.4th 251 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (best interests of the child standard for exit orders)