Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. C.G.
220 Cal. App. 4th 675
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DCFS filed a §300 petition (subd. (b)) alleging Mother’s mental illness prevented regular care of Aiden and Elizabeth; Father capable of caring for minors throughout the history.
- Mother experienced multiple psychiatric hospitalizations in 2012 and 2013 for delusions and auditory hallucinations and stopped taking medications.
- Mother’s condition involved paranoid and delusional behavior; there were episodes of threat to self/others and alleged lack of maternal bonding.
- DCFS sought detention and Family Court supervision; temporary orders kept minors with both parents with conditions, including monitored visits and medication adherence.
- February 15, 2013 adjudication/disposition: juvenile court found substantial danger and ordered Father sole custody with monitored visits for Mother, then jurisdiction terminated and custody order filed in family court.
- Court reverses and remands for custody/visitation determination in family court; holding the juvenile court should not have sustained a petition based solely on Mother’s mental illness where Father was capable of care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(b) jurisdiction was proper when Father could adequately care for minors. | DCFS asserted Mother’s mental illness endangered minors. | Mother argues no current endangerment and seeks custody rights. | Reversed; petition based solely on Mother's illness improper; remand to family court. |
| Whether the matter should have remained in juvenile court or been transferred to family court for custody determinations. | DCFS contends juvenile court proper given risk. | Mother contends dependency should not apply if risks can be managed. | Remand to family court for custody/visitation hearing; juvenile court to stay proceedings. |
| Whether the record supports a continuation of guardianship/monitoring versus full parental custody. | DCFS argues need for protective measures due to illness. | Father capable of custody; Mother’s condition manageable with supervision. | Court instructions to transfer custody/disposition issue to family court. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re James R., 176 Cal.App.4th 129 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (causation and substantial risk standard for 300(b))
- In re Phoenix B., 218 Cal.App.3d 787 (Cal. App. 3d 1990) (one parent may suffice if other care is proper)
- In re David M., 134 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. App. 4th 2005) (no defined risk evidence from mental illness without impact on care)
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (Cal. App. 4th 1996) (mother’s noncompliance and neglect; distinguishable facts)
- In re John W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. App. 4th 1996) (dependency proper custody forum; shift to family court)
- In re Matthew S., 41 Cal.App.4th 1311 (Cal. App. 4th 1996) (evidence needed linking illness to child harm—not presumed)