L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Veronica C. (In re Joaquin C.), 15 Cal. App. 5th 537

Background

Mother Veronica C., with a documented history of psychosis/schizophrenia (paranoid type), cared for six‑month‑old Joaquin in a clean home with maternal family support; DCFS repeatedly observed the child well‑groomed, bonded, and healthy.
2015 interstate custody dispute resulted in three older children being returned to their father; that history prompted heightened DCFS concern about Veronica’s mental health.
DCFS opened a voluntary family maintenance (VFM) case in early 2016; Veronica attended therapy intermittently, initially resisted psychiatric medication while breastfeeding, then later began medication after removal.
DCFS detained Joaquin on July 7, 2016, and filed a § 300(b) petition alleging mother’s mental illness rendered her unable to provide regular care and placed the child at risk.
At adjudication the juvenile court found the petition true and ordered Joaquin removed; the court relied primarily on mother’s mental illness, past service noncompliance, and the risk of future noncompliance.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held DCFS failed to prove by a preponderance that Veronica had ever failed to supervise, provide necessities, or was currently unable to provide regular care due to mental illness; jurisdictional and dispositional orders were vacated and petition dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under §300(b)(1) based on mother’s mental illness	DCFS: Mother’s longstanding psychosis, history of noncompliance with services, and refusal of timely medication created a substantial risk of harm to child	Veronica: Child was consistently well cared for; VFM participation and family support show no current inability to supervise or provide care	Reversed — insufficient evidence mother failed to supervise/provide necessities or was presently unable to provide regular care due to mental illness; diagnosis alone insufficient for jurisdiction
Whether parent’s willingness to accept services equals admission of inability to care	DCFS: Mother’s agreement to treatment acknowledged risk and inability to care	Mother: Accepting services is not an admission of incapacity and should not be treated as such	Held: Court cautioned against inferring incapacity from willingness to accept services; that would chill participation in preservation services
Whether past mental‑health incidents and out‑of‑state findings justified removal absent present harm	DCFS: Historical incidents and prior investigations indicate ongoing risk	Mother: Historical events are remote and unconnected to current, observed parenting of this child	Held: Historical incidents did not constitute substantial evidence of present inability to care for Joaquin
Whether court may condition return on demonstrated medication compliance	DCFS: Medication compliance is necessary to mitigate risk	Mother: Ordering medication/testing and making return contingent on compliance oversteps when no present neglect shown	Held: Court erred to detain based primarily on speculative future noncompliance; such conditions cannot substitute for proof of present inability or risk

Key Cases Cited

In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (clarifies §300(b)(1) requires proof of parental inability to provide care, not blame)
In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (framework describing elements traditionally considered under §300(b)(1))
In re Yolanda L., 7 Cal.App.5th 987 (standard of review for jurisdictional and dispositional findings)
In re Nicholas B., 88 Cal.App.4th 1126 (jurisdictional scope under §300 is narrowly defined)
In re Matthew S., 41 Cal.App.4th 1311 (mental illness alone does not automatically support dependency jurisdiction)
In re Jamie M., 134 Cal.App.3d 530 (caution against presuming detriment from mental illness alone)
In re P.C., 165 Cal.App.4th 98 (homelessness alone cannot justify dependency jurisdiction)