L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Lisa E. (In Re R.T.)
220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Mother (Lisa E.) sought to supervise 14–17‑year‑old daughter R.T., who repeatedly ran away, was incorrigible, and bore/expected children; mother arranged placement with grandparents but could not control R.T.
- Dept. filed a §300(b)(1) petition alleging R.T. faced substantial risk of serious physical harm from mother’s failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect her.
- Juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction and ordered placement and reunification services; Court of Appeal affirmed; Supreme Court granted review.
- Central statutory text: §300(b)(1) (first clause) authorizes dependency if harm or substantial risk exists “as a result of the failure or inability of [a] parent … to adequately supervise or protect the child.”
- Lower courts split: some (e.g., In re Precious D.) held parental fault/neglect or unfitness must be found before §300(b)(1) jurisdiction; others concluded no culpability requirement is necessary.
- Supreme Court affirmed dependency jurisdiction and held the first clause of §300(b)(1) does not require a finding of parental fault or blameworthiness to assert jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(b)(1) first clause requires a finding of parental fault, neglect, or unfitness before dependency jurisdiction may be asserted | Dept./Respondent: statute’s plain text and structure permit jurisdiction based on a parent’s failure or inability without an express fault requirement | Mother/Appellant: parental fault must be shown (or delinquency §601 applied) because dependency can lead to severe consequences and legislative history favors requiring parental culpability | Court held §300(b)(1) first clause authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding of parental fault or blameworthiness |
| Whether the statutory causation phrase “as a result of” demands parent‑caused risk rather than child‑caused incorrigibility | Dept.: causation can be satisfied where parental inability to supervise results in substantial risk, even if blame isn’t assigned | Mother: risk was caused by child’s incorrigible conduct, not mother’s inability; jurisdiction should be under §601 | Court found substantial evidence that mother was unable to adequately supervise and that the child faced substantial risk; causation satisfied without assigning blame |
| Whether reading §300(b)(1) without fault requirement undermines §601 (delinquency) or creates improper overlap | Dept.: overlap is permissible; §241.1 directs agencies/court to choose the best jurisdiction for the child | Mother: no‑fault dependency would nullify §601 and improperly stigmatize parents | Court rejected nullity argument, noting statutory scheme permits overlap and dependency offers services focused on child safety |
| Whether Precious D. was correct to impose a due‑process/fault requirement | — | Mother pointed to Precious D. and due process concerns about possible termination without finding of unfitness | Court disapproved In re Precious D. to the extent it required parental culpability; procedural safeguards later in dependency process protect parental rights |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Precious D., 189 Cal.App.4th 1251 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held §300(b)(1) requires finding of parental unfitness or neglect; court here disapproved that view)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App.) (articulated a three‑part formulation often read to require neglect as an element of §300(b)(1))
- In re W.B., 55 Cal.4th 30 (Cal.) (distinguishes dependency and delinquency systems and their aims)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (Cal.) (discusses dependency procedural steps and safeguards before termination)
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal.) (statutory interpretation principle that omission of language in one subdivision suggests legislative purpose)