Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Josue E.
228 Cal. App. 4th 820
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- A. E. (three years old) was involved in an August 3, 2013 incident where Father Josue E. struck her with a belt, resulting in welts on her leg and buttocks; Father was arrested for Cruelty to a Child.
- Mother denied knowledge of the welts but later stated she disapproved of belt spanking; no prior DCFS history or domestic violence; Father had no criminal, substance abuse, or medical/mental health issues in the family.
- DCFS and the juvenile court found a prima facie case under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and ordered reunification services for Father with monitored visits, and Mother to monitor visits; Father was excluded from the home.
- At dispositional hearing, Father expressed remorse, commitment to learning better parenting, and began engaging in parenting resources; DCFS noted cooperation and potential for reform.
- The juvenile court ultimately sustained the petition and ordered 52 weeks of parenting classes and two monitored visits per week, with a plan to potentially allow Mother to monitor Father’s visits.
- Father timely appealed the dispositional order, contending that removal from the home was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that less drastic remedies could have protected A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was removal supported by clear and convincing evidence? | DCFS/County argued substantial danger existed; past abuse demonstrated risk to A.’s safety. | Father argues isolated incident, remorse, and willingness to change show no substantial future danger. | Removal not supported; no clear and convincing evidence of substantial future danger. |
| Whether less drastic measures could protect A without removing Father from the home? | Removal was justified to shield A. from ongoing risk. | Court could impose supervision and in-home placement with stringent conditions to protect A. | Undertake in-home supervision/conditions could suffice; reversal to remove Father from home. |
| Did the errors require reversing the entire dispositional order or only the home-removal provision? | Dispositional order appropriately met overall goals for reunification. | Only the removal clause was erroneous; other findings could stand. | Dispositional order reversed only to the extent it required Father to remain outside the home. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Henry V., 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (Cal. App. Dist. 2004) (supports in-home protections as alternatives to removal when appropriate)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. App. Dist. 2004) (clarifies clear and convincing standard and substantial evidence review)
- In re Diamond H., 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. App. Dist. 2000) (past abuse alone does not establish future dependency risk)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. App. Dist. 1991) (abuses must indicate likelihood of recurrence to justify removal)
- In re J.N., 181 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. App. Dist. 2010) (reviews ongoing danger standard in dependency cases)
- In re Jeannette S., 94 Cal.App.3d 52 (Cal. App. Dist. 1979) (unprotected home placement and agency supervision as protective measures)