Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Juan P.
226 Cal. App. 4th 1240
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Juan P. appeals orders denying his section 388 petition for custody or, in the alternative, reunification services for Jonathan P.
- Jonathan P. was removed from his mother's custody and at disposition the court ordered no reunification services for Father due to unknown whereabouts.
- Jonathan’s whereabouts later became known; Father appeared at the six‑month review and sought custody and reunification services.
- The court considered Father’s custody request under section 388 (best interests) rather than applying the detriment standard of section 361.2, and denied both custody and services.
- The record shows Jonathan was absent from placement and its condition could not be fully assessed; the court found no grounds to offer reunification services under 361.5.
- This court reverses the denial of reunification services and remands for evaluation of services that could be provided to Father notwithstanding Jonathan’s absence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 361.2 applies to a post-disposition custody request by a noncustodial parent | Father argues 361.2 governs custody, not 388. | Department asserts 388 applies and 361.2 not triggered post-disposition. | 361.2 applies; error harmless given circumstances |
| Whether the court erred by applying the 388 best‑interests standard to custody | Father contends 388 was improper; 361.2 threshold governs custody. | Department contends 388 analysis was appropriate for modification. | Error in applying 388; nonetheless harmless due to absence of suitable evidence |
| Whether Father was entitled to reunification services under 361.5 | Father had a right to reunification services once located and requests were made. | Services denied due to unknown whereabouts and absence of Jonathan. | Father entitled to evaluate availability of services; remanded for 361.5 consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (1993) (361.2 applies at disposition, not later review hearings; detriment standard is jurisdictional)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (2004) (nonoffending parent's statutory rights; detriment burden on opposing party)
- In re Z.K., 201 Cal.App.4th 51 (2011) (6- and 12-month review procedures; detriment finding required for placement with noncustodial parent)
- In re Suhey, 221 Cal.App.4th 732 (2013) (discussion of applying 361.2 at six-month review; notice issues noted)
- In re Janee W., 140 Cal.App.4th 1444 (2006) (361.2 procedures at review hearings; distinctions from disposition)