L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. C.E. (In re C.M.)
250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Mother and father (C.E. and B.D.) share a son, C.M.; dependency proceedings began after allegations of domestic violence involving mother and another man placed the children at risk under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300.
- The juvenile court sustained the dependency petition and ordered mother to complete services including a 52‑week batterer’s program (which she did not fully complete), counseling, and psychological evaluation.
- C.M. was placed with father in September 2017; Department recommended terminating jurisdiction with father having sole physical custody, monitored visits for mother, and joint legal custody.
- Father objected to joint legal custody, invoking Family Code § 3044’s rebuttable presumption against awarding custody (sole or joint) to a parent who perpetrated domestic violence within five years.
- The juvenile court declined to apply Family Code § 3044, found insufficient basis to trigger the presumption, and ordered joint legal custody; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Code § 3044 applies in juvenile dependency proceedings | Father: § 3044 creates a rebuttable presumption that disfavors awarding custody to a domestic‑violence perpetrator and must apply | Department: Juvenile dependency proceedings are governed by Welfare & Institutions Code; Family Code custody presumptions do not apply unless expressly made applicable | The court held § 3044 does not apply to dependency proceedings under Welf. & Inst. Code |
| Whether ordering joint legal custody was an abuse of discretion | Father: Even if § 3044 inapplicable, joint legal custody was an abuse given domestic violence history and disputes over facts | Department: Juvenile court reasonably exercised discretion based on totality of circumstances, mother’s past role in decisions, and lack of current safety concerns | The court held the joint legal custody order was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (1996) (Family Code custody rules generally do not apply in dependency proceedings absent express applicability)
- In re Jennifer R., 14 Cal.App.4th 704 (1993) (juvenile court not bound by Family Code custody presumptions when terminating dependency jurisdiction)
- In re J.T., 228 Cal.App.4th 953 (2014) (Family Code provisions do not govern dependency visitation unless expressly made applicable)
- In re Alexandria M., 156 Cal.App.4th 1088 (2007) (dependency proceedings governed by Welfare & Institutions Code; Family Code custody rules inapplicable)
- In re Cheyenne B., 203 Cal.App.4th 1361 (2012) (statutory interpretation in juvenile cases reviewed de novo)
- Ellis v. Lyons, 2 Cal.App.5th 404 (2016) (Family Code § 3044 is part of Family Code custody scheme addressing domestic violence)
- In re John W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961 (1996) (juvenile court considers totality of child’s circumstances when making custody orders)
- In re Roger S., 4 Cal.App.4th 25 (1992) (juvenile court’s parens patriae role in custody decisions)