In re M.C. CA2/2
B308304
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Minor (born 2009) was in mother's custody; father had shared legal custody and physical custody after removal. DCFS placed minor with father and supervised placement.
- Mother diagnosed with psychosis; reported multi‑year auditory hallucinations commanding her to do “bad things,” including harm to herself and others; multiple brief psychiatric holds and refusal or noncompliance with prescribed psychotropic medication and treatment.
- Family members reported mother’s paranoia, threats, purchase/display of a gun, alleged witchcraft/curse behavior, and efforts to cut off minor’s contact with maternal relatives.
- Minor exhibited anxiety, withdrawal, panic/breakdowns, fear of mother, and stated he felt safer in father’s home; therapist reported mother’s behavior caused minor anxiety and discomfort.
- DCFS filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(b)(1) (failure to protect/parental mental illness); juvenile court sustained the petition, removed minor from mother under § 361(c)(3), ordered reunification services for mother, and retained jurisdiction.
- Both mother and DCFS appealed: mother challenged jurisdictional findings and removal; DCFS cross‑appealed the decision to retain jurisdiction rather than terminate it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 300(b)(1) jurisdiction was supported | Mother’s untreated psychosis and auditory hallucinations directing harm created a substantial risk of serious physical harm to minor | Mental illness alone does not establish risk; evidence insufficient and minor not shown to have suffered or be at risk of serious physical harm | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported jurisdiction based on mother’s hallucinations, treatment noncompliance, violent ideation, and child’s fear |
| Whether removal under § 361(c)(3) was warranted (severe emotional damage) | Minor suffered severe emotional damage (anxiety, withdrawals, breakdowns) and no reasonable means existed to protect him without removal | Less‑restrictive alternatives (therapy, meds, monitored/unannounced visits) would protect minor; removal unnecessary | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported high probability of severe emotional harm and that alternatives were insufficient |
| Whether the court abused discretion by retaining jurisdiction instead of terminating it | (DCFS) No safety issue in father’s custody; child wished to remain; court should have terminated jurisdiction | Court may retain jurisdiction to supervise reunification and address mother–child relationship because mother was primary caretaker and willing to engage in services | Affirmed — retention was authorized and not an abuse of discretion given goal of preserving family ties and mother’s stated willingness to accept services |
Key Cases Cited
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (1993) (standard for juvenile court jurisdiction and burden to make jurisdictional finding)
- In re Travis C., 13 Cal.App.5th 1219 (2017) (parental mental illness alone does not presume child harm; untreated mental illness and choices may create substantial risk)
- In re K.B., 59 Cal.App.5th 593 (2021) (risk standard; court need not wait for disaster)
- In re D.B., 26 Cal.App.5th 320 (2018) (substantial‑evidence standard on jurisdictional findings)
- In re V.L., 54 Cal.App.5th 147 (2020) (standards for removal under § 361(c)(3))
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) (appellate review framing for clear and convincing findings)
- In re A.F., 3 Cal.App.5th 283 (2016) (limitations of unannounced visits as a protective measure)
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (2021) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for juvenile court decisions)