Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. D.B.
225 Cal. App. 4th 1358
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- A.B. is a minor, child of mother D.B. and father, with father seeking divorce; A.B. had limited contact with father.
- DCFS referred in October 2012 due to A.B.’s delay, alleged health concerns, cluttered home, and concerns about maternal grandmother’s care; mother initially refused cooperation.
- Detention and adjudication: DCFS petition under §300(b) alleged risk due to mother's supervision and father’s protection failures; court found prima facie jurisdiction and detained A.B.; mediation was scheduled.
- Mediation notice was mailed to mother at wrong address; mother and father did not attend; juvenile court adjudicated the original petition despite objections.
- A.B. was found to be Failure to Thrive after being located with maternal grandmother in Kentucky; A.B. returned to California and placed in foster care; her health deteriorated prior to the second petition.
- In January 2013, DCFS filed a subsequent petition under §342 alleging new grounds: b-2 (placed in care by maternal grandmother) and b-3 (underfeeding/neglect). Mother’s counsel sought reconsideration and a continuance for subpoenas and discovery, which the court denied.
- At a April 2013 adjudication, the court dismissed b-2 and found b-3 true by a preponderance, removed A.B. from mother, placed with father, granted monitored visits, and ordered mother to participate in services. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether original petition jurisdiction was reversible as moot | DCFS concedes error on original petition but moot because subsequent petition established jurisdiction. | Reversal of original petition could provide meaningful relief for later proceedings. | Original jurisdiction moot; substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under the subsequent petition. |
| Whether denial of continuance defense for the MAT assessment was an abuse of discretion | Continued review and subpoena responses necessary to challenge MAT evidence. | Continuance denied due to lack of good cause and minor's best interests; counsel absent for MAT defense. | No abuse; denial affirmed; substantial time existed to review February 2013 MAT findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.K., 174 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (substantial evidence standard for dependency jurisdiction and dispositional findings)
- In re Jessica C., 93 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (requirements for original vs subsequent petitions; MOOTNESS considerations)
- In re Jessica K., 79 Cal.App.4th 1313 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (mootness and relief considerations in dependency appeals)
- In re Esperanza C., 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (case-by-case mootness analysis in dependency proceedings)
- In re Richard K., 25 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (preservation and forfeiture of continuance objections)
- In re Gerald J., 1 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (abuse of discretion standard for continuances)
- In re Dylan T., 65 Cal.App.4th 765 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (impact of earlier errors on subsequent dependency proceedings)