L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Richard C. (In re Alexzander C.)
18 Cal. App. 5th 438
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Parents (Father and Mother) have minor children Alexzander (14) and Catrina (11). A prior 2009–2010 dependency arose from Mother's methamphetamine use; Father was granted custody when Mother left but Mother later moved back in.
- In December 2016 DCFS investigated reports that both parents used methamphetamine at home; parents initially denied use but later tested positive. Children were detained January 2017 and placed with an adult sister.
- DCFS described both parents as recent methamphetamine users; Mother was later diagnosed with a moderate methamphetamine use disorder; Father admitted long-term use (25+ years), increasing to multiple times per day.
- DCFS argued children were at high risk because parental drug use (and Father’s tolerance/denial) created opportunity, access, and normalizing of drug use. Parents tested clean on some follow-up tests and proposed treatment but had not enrolled at disposition.
- Juvenile court sustained a section 300(b) petition finding recent methamphetamine use and a substantial risk of physical harm; it ordered reunification services and removed the children from parental custody. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCFS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports a finding of parental substance abuse under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) | Father conceded "user" but argued not an "abuser" and use alone insufficient | Evidence of long-term addiction, cravings, increased frequency, prior dependency, admissions, and Mother’s medical diagnosis supported a substance use disorder finding | Substantial evidence supports finding Father has a methamphetamine use disorder (court affirms) |
| Whether parental drug use created a substantial risk of serious physical harm to children | Father argued children were doing well (good grades, cared for) and no nexus to serious harm | DCFS argued drug use normalized drugs for children, provided access/opportunity, left children unsupervised at times, and parents denied problem — creating substantial future risk | Court held substantial evidence showed a substantial risk of serious physical harm (relied on opportunity, access, modeling, and prior history) |
| Whether removal from parental custody was justified under §361(c)(1) | Father argued alternative was to leave children with parents because home was adequate | Respondent: neither parent had started treatment; Mother previously failed to comply; removal necessary to avert harm | Court found clear and convincing evidence removal was necessary; affirmed removal order |
| Whether the jurisdictional finding could rest solely on drug use or required additional facts | Father contended drug use alone cannot establish jurisdiction | DCFS/respondent pointed to other facts (access, normalization, prior case, admissions, increased use) | Court agreed drug use alone is insufficient but substantial additional evidence existed here, so jurisdiction sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (2012) (uses DSM criteria to assess substance abuse under §300(b))
- In re Christopher R., 225 Cal.App.4th 1210 (2014) (discusses DSM-5 criteria and risk analysis for parental substance use)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (1991) (parental drug use in home can create risk by providing means, opportunity, and example to children)
- In re Rebecca C., 228 Cal.App.4th 720 (2014) (drug use alone is not always sufficient for dependency jurisdiction)
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (2011) (removal justified to avert potential detriment where parent cannot provide proper care)