Los Angeles County Deparment of Children & Family Services v. Emma M.
213 Cal. App. 4th 358
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mother, Emma M., challenges dependency court jurisdiction and dispositional orders after arrest and incarceration on a gang-related offense.
- Allegation under §300, subd. (b) claimed Mother was unable to protect Noe due to incarceration and failure to arrange care.
- Noe F. was 10 months old at detention; Father was incarcerated for two counts of attempted murder and initially deemed nonoffending.
- Noe was taken into protective custody; DCFS initially considered placement with maternal grandmother, then with maternal great-aunt, and ultimately with the great-aunt during proceedings.
- At jurisdiction, the court sustained the §300(b) allegation against Mother and dismissed allegations against Father; Father later received custody at disposition.
- DCFS report and proceedings showed ongoing consideration of relatives as potential caregivers, but the court ultimately placed Noe with Father without properly required §361.2 findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration alone supports §300(b) jurisdiction | Mother argues incarceration, without inability to arrange care, cannot support §300(b). | Mother's care choices were insufficient; placement with relatives was not adequately arranged. | Jurisdiction lacking; incarceration alone cannot support §300(b); reversed |
| Whether removal from Mother complied with §361 | Removal was improper because appropriate relatives existed and proper grounds were not shown. | Removal was based on parental inability to provide care and detriment otherwise; evidence supported removal. | Removal unsupported; reversed |
| Whether §361.2 placement with Father was properly analyzed and justified | Court failed to make required §361.2(a) detrement and related findings; Father’s custody requires proper analysis. | Court could place with noncustodial parent when not detrimental; Father deemed nonoffending and suitable. | Findings under §361.2 not made; custody order reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S. D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (incarceration alone not basis for jurisdiction)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. App. 4th 1991) (substantial risk required for §300(b))
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (placement with incarcerated parent may be appropriate under §361.2)
- In re S. D. (Isayah C. cited), 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (factors for detriment under §361.2(a))
- In re Austin P., 118 Cal.App.4th 1124 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (two-step process for §361.2: placement and permanence)
- In re Jasmine G., 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (Cal. App. 2000) (removal standards under §361 require substantial evidence of danger)
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (Cal. App. 1996) (clear and convincing standard for dispositional orders)