98 Cal.App.5th 1021
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- L.C., a three-year-old, was removed from his mother (D.C.)'s care after she was arrested while transporting fentanyl with L.C. in the car in Los Angeles.
- The juvenile court sustained a dependency petition, removed L.C., and ordered Mother to complete a case plan (drug treatment, parenting, counseling, drug testing); Mother did so despite relocating to Mexico, as advised by her attorney, due to immigration/criminal issues.
- Mother maintained regular video contact with L.C., completed an in-patient drug program, counseling, parenting classes, and submitted to drug testing via Mexico's child welfare agency (DIF), though the validity of some tests was questioned by California authorities.
- At the 12-month review, the juvenile court terminated reunification services, citing unresolved concerns about drug testing, risk to L.C., services available in Mexico, and Mother’s failure to return and clear a warrant.
- L.C. sought writ relief, arguing the record showed no substantial risk of detriment if he were returned to Mother’s care, given her compliance with the plan and continued involvement with L.C.; the Department argued evidence supported its caution.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Mother’s performance on her case plan suffice? | Satisfied plan, no drug use shown; | Insufficient/uncertain drug testing; | Plan substantially completed; |
| sought all required services abroad. | questioned negative results from DIF. | lack of U.S. drug test not fatal. | |
| Could L.C.'s developmental needs be met in Mexico? | Mexico’s DIF confirmed services | U.S. placement better for English, | No evidence needs unmet in Mexico; |
| available; bilingual support. | more confidence in U.S. servicers. | services available through DIF. | |
| Effect of Mother’s failure to return and surrender? | Absence due to legal counsel, not | Non-return/self-help shows disregard | Not grounds for finding risk; |
| willful evasion; maintained contact. | for court orders and risk to compliance. | mere risk perception is insufficient. | |
| Standard for detriment to justify termination of | No substantial evidence of present | Cumulative doubts about mother's | Department failed burden; evidence |
| reunification and setting a termination/adoption hearing | risk; best interests require return. | compliance create risk to L.C. | does not show substantial risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael G. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.5th 609 (Cal. 2023) (articulates the purpose of dependency law prioritizing reunification and maintenance of family relationships)
- In re Sabrina H., 149 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (no blanket rule against out-of-country placements in dependency law)
- David B. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (substantial risk of detriment requires more than less-than-ideal or less capable parenting)
- In re A.G., 12 Cal.App.5th 994 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (parent’s absence from the country due to legal issues should not by itself control reunification)