Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Crystal R.
225 Cal. App. 4th 1210
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DCFS petitioned to declare four children dependents under §300(b) due to Crystal's seven-year cocaine history and current cocaine abuse, and Frank's marijuana use and history of illicit drugs.
- Brianna was born positive for cocaine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine; Crystal admitted past cocaine use and did not consistently test or enroll in treatment.
- At detainment, Brianna remained hospitalized; the other children were detained with Crystal’s relatives caring for them; Natalie resided in Las Vegas with a relative.
- Crystal and Frank had an on‑again, off‑again relationship; Frank acknowledged daily marijuana use and had probation issues, including noncompliance and pending paternity questions.
- The court sustained the petition, found substantial danger to the children, ordered removal from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for Crystal and Brianna, including treatment, testing, parenting classes, counseling, and monitored visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jurisdiction findings as to Crystal for all four children were supported | DCFS argues Crystal's ongoing cocaine use endangers all children | Crystal contends evidence for older children insufficient to show risk; Brianna is properly subject | Substantial evidence supports jurisdiction as to Crystal for all four |
| Whether the evidence definitions of substance abuse satisfied §300(b) for Crystal | DCFS relies on ongoing cocaine use and pregnancy exposure as endangering the children | Crystal argues DSM-IV-TR criteria are too narrow and not required for finding substance abuse | Substantial evidence supports finding of substance abuse; DSM-5/DSM-IV-TR framing not controlling |
| Whether Frank's §300(b) count regarding Brianna is supported | Frank's persistent marijuana use and parole violations show inability to provide care | Frank argues marijuana use alone does not justify jurisdiction | Substantial evidence supports jurisdiction over Brianna for Frank |
| Whether the disposition orders were proper | Removal and reunification services with monitored visitation were appropriate given danger and noncompliance | Challenging the scope of services and monitoring as overly burdensome or unnecessary | Disposition affirmed; orders within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (defines substance abuse for §300(b) via DSM framework but not exclusive)
- Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal.App.4th 1991) (tender years create inherent risk; home quality matters)
- In re Savannah M., 131 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal.App.4th 2005) (past conduct may be probative of current conditions)
- Jennifer A. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal.App.4th 2004) (substantiation for DSM-based substance abuse approach)
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (Cal.App.4th 2011) (review of jurisdiction based on evidence relating to parent)
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (Cal.App.4th 2011) (past conduct may support current risk under §300(b))