In re M.E. CA2/5
B307165
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 29, 2021Background
- Parents (A.E. and G.E.) have three children; eldest M.E. was born at 26 weeks with complex medical needs (chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy, G-tube feedings, prior tracheostomy with persistent stoma).
- From 2018 to 2019 M.E. declined from mildly to severely malnourished (BMI and weight measurements); parents missed numerous specialist and nutrition appointments and did not obtain prescribed higher-calorie formula or resolved G-tube issues.
- DCFS obtained warrants, hospitalized M.E. (found dirty, malodorous, sacral lesion, dysfunctional/dirty G-tube), and placed him in care; M.E. gained significant weight and developmental progress after removal.
- Juvenile court sustained Welfare & Institutions Code section 300(b)(1) (medical neglect) as to M.E. and section 300(j) as to the siblings, removed M.E. from parental custody, returned the siblings subject to services, and denied father’s section 388 petition.
- Parents appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of medical neglect and insufficient evidence that father’s mental health endangered the children; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b)(1) for medical neglect of M.E. | DCFS: parents repeatedly failed to follow medical recommendations, missed appointments, and underfed M.E., causing failure to thrive. | Parents: they cared for M.E., blamed medical providers, pumping regimen, and G-tube pulling for weight issues; they sought services. | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports medical neglect. |
| Whether subdivision (j) supports jurisdiction over siblings based on sibling’s neglect | DCFS: M.E.’s neglect plus parents’ broader failures (school absences, missed dental care, failure to prioritize medical needs) create substantial risk to siblings. | Parents: siblings are differently situated and not medically at risk; evidence insufficient. | Affirmed — totality of circumstances supports risk to siblings under §300(j). |
| Whether removal of M.E. from parental custody under §361(c)(1) was justified by clear and convincing evidence | DCFS: M.E.’s complex needs and parents’ past conduct made return a substantial danger; removal necessary. | Parents: less restrictive alternatives (home visits, public health nurse, services) would suffice. | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported removal; alternatives were not adequate given parents’ prior noncooperation. |
| Whether appellate challenge to court’s failure to state factual basis for reasonable efforts under §361(e) was preserved | DCFS: father failed to object below, so procedural claim is forfeited. | Father: court did not state facts supporting reasonable efforts finding, so removal unsupported. | Held forfeited — father did not make contemporaneous objection, so claim waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (sets review standard: draw all reasonable inferences to support juvenile court findings)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (appellate court may affirm if any alleged statutory basis for jurisdiction is supported by substantial evidence)
- In re L.W., 32 Cal.App.5th 840 (elements required to sustain jurisdiction under §300(b)(1))
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (scope and application of §300(j) and considering totality of circumstances)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (standard for appellate review of findings requiring clear and convincing evidence)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (preservation rule: failure to object in trial court forfeits appellate review)