In Re Precious D.
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Precious D., a 17-year-old, was found incorrigible and removed from her mother's custody under Welfare and Institutions Code §300(b).
- DCFS alleged the mother's inability to supervise or protect Precious due to ongoing incorrigible behavior and poor communication.
- The petition also referenced prior family maintenance services and concerns about abuse, but evidence of actual neglect or fitness issues by the mother was limited.
- Precious refused to participate in family therapy and to visit with the mother; DCFS sought jurisdiction to provide court-ordered services.
- The juvenile court admitted evidence, found jurisdiction under §300(b), and placed Precious outside the mother's custody; mother appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The appellate court reversed, finding no substantial evidence of parental unfitness or neglect and that jurisdiction under §300(b) was improper without such findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(b) requires parental unfitness for the 'inability to supervise or protect' clause. | DCFS argued no unfitness needed; the clause stands alone. | Mother contends unfitness or neglect is required. | Unfitness/neglect required; jurisdiction reversed. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence of unfitness or neglect by the mother. | Evidence of incorrigible behavior and protective inability supports jurisdiction. | Record shows ongoing communication and willingness to participate; no neglect. | Insufficient evidence of unfitness or neglect; jurisdiction reversed. |
| Whether due process requires linking §300(b) jurisdiction to parental fault. | Inability to supervise suffices irrespective of parental fault. | Due process requires showing fault to avoid termination risks. | Due process requires parental fault; jurisdiction improper. |
| Whether the court should distinguish remaining pathways for incorrigible minors outside parental custody. | DCFS seeks same outcome via §300(b). | Other remedies (e.g., §§ 601, 241.1) exist for incorrigible minors. | Provide alternative statutory avenues; reverse the current orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re James R., 176 Cal. App. 4th 129 (2009) (requires §300(b) showing of neglectful conduct and causation with serious harm or substantial risk)
- In re Meranda P., 56 Cal. App. 4th 1143 (1997) (dependency process safeguards and reunification framework)
- In re A.S., 180 Cal. App. 4th 351 (2009) (due process in dependency proceedings; private vs governmental interests)
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal. 4th 1217 (2009) (dependency scheme viewed in context of whole process)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal. App. 4th 212 (2005) (due process and child welfare interest)
- In re R.M., 175 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2009) (reversal when jurisdiction unsupported by evidence)