L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. S.Y. (In re L.W.)
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Mother sought medical help for cocaine use; a Kaiser physician reported she smoked crack and disclosed use around her 13‑year‑old daughter L.W., prompting a DCFS referral.
- DCFS investigation: home appeared clean, no paraphernalia found; Mother admitted a history of mixed substance use (prescription meds, alcohol, cocaine) but gave varying accounts of frequency and whether use occurred in the home or in child’s presence.
- Mother had recent criminal history including two DUI arrests within a year and a conviction for reckless driving in October 2017.
- DCFS safety plan required Mother to abstain, enroll in treatment, submit to testing, and allow family supervision; Mother initially agreed but later refused on‑demand tests and had a positive cocaine tox result after detention.
- DCFS filed a section 300(b)(1) petition alleging Mother’s substance abuse and poly‑substance use made her unable to provide regular care and placed L.W. at risk; the juvenile court sustained jurisdiction and ordered dependency with services conditioned on compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCFS/Minor’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b)(1) based on Mother’s substance abuse | Mother: substance use alone, without evidence of harm or nexus, is insufficient; family support mitigates risk | DCFS/Minor: Mother’s admitted daily use, positive tests after notice, mixed substances, and recent DUI/reckless driving convictions show nexus and substantial risk | Court: Affirmed jurisdiction — substance abuse plus DUI/reckless driving convictions and continued positive tests create sufficient nexus and substantial risk |
| Whether dependency adjudication (formal court supervision) was an abuse of discretion versus informal family maintenance (§360(b)) | Mother: informal supervision would suffice given family support and no past harm to child | DCFS/Minor: Mother’s inconsistent statements, ongoing use, refusal/failed enrollment, and criminal history justify formal oversight | Court: No abuse of discretion — formal dependency was reasonable given Mother’s trajectory and lack of engagement in treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.V., 217 Cal.App.4th 126 (discussing standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence for juvenile jurisdiction)
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (same)
- In re Sheila B., 19 Cal.App.4th 187 (definition of substantial evidence)
- In re R.V., 208 Cal.App.4th 837 (juvenile court need not wait for actual injury before assuming jurisdiction)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (drug use alone, without nexus to harm, insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Jennifer A. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 1322 (substance use alone may not establish jurisdiction)
- In re Rebecca C., 228 Cal.App.4th 720 (similar facts; substance abuse alone insufficient absent nexus)
- In re Joaquin C., 15 Cal.App.5th 537 (elements required for §300(b)(1) finding)
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (jurisdictional standards)
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (court may order informal supervision under §360(b))
- In re Christopher H., 50 Cal.App.4th 1001 (broad discretion in dispositional orders)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (standard for abuse of discretion review)