Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. N.D.
228 Cal. App. 4th 202
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mother N.D. was a minor when DCFS filed a section 300 petition on her 17‑month‑old son J.F., yielding jurisdiction and a home‑of‑the‑parent disposition.
- Over time, mother faced mental health issues, therapy needs, and past trauma; J.F. stayed in the home under supervision and later in Mary’s Shelter due to varying circumstances.
- In 2012–2013, DCFS repeatedly recommended terminating jurisdiction as mother made progress, but the juvenile court continued jurisdiction at multiple 364 hearings.
- J.F.’s counsel and DCFS disputed whether jurisdiction should terminate; the court ultimately retained jurisdiction citing ongoing supervision and safety concerns.
- In November 2013, after a 364 hearing, the court again retained jurisdiction, expressing concern that termination could risk J.F.’s safety and mother’s continued need for services.
- Mother appealed the 364 decision; DCFS aligned with termination in a letter brief, while the court ultimately affirmed retention of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the court retain jurisdiction despite the Department's termination recommendation under §364(c)? | N.D. argues termination is compelled if the Department recommends it and no conditions remain. | Mother contends the Department's recommendation should control and jurisdiction should terminate. | Yes; court may retain jurisdiction if substantial evidence supports continued supervision. |
| What standard governs appellate review of §364 decisions? | N.D. emphasizes substantial evidence supports the court’s factual findings. | DCFS contends the court correctly followed statutory guidance with the Department’s input. | Substantial evidence standard applies; appellate review does not reweigh credibility. |
| Does §364(c) require the Department to prove conditions exist that justify initial jurisdiction, or may the court decide otherwise? | N.D. asserts the Department must prove continued conditions or likelihood of such if supervision ends. | DCFS suggests the court must terminate if the Department fails to show those conditions, but the court may still retain if evidence supports it. | The court can retain jurisdiction if evidence supports continued need for supervision, independent of Department’s recommendation. |
| Does interpreting §364(c) to allow court retention without Department veto avoid constitutional issues? | N.D. argues separate powers prevent Department veto; court must act independently. | DCFS contends Department input is part of the process, but does not have veto power over the court. | Yes; interpretation preserves separation of powers and supports court discretion to retain jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N. S., 97 Cal.App.4th 167 (Cal. App. 2002) (review standard for section 364 orders)
- In re Baby Boy L., 24 Cal.App.4th 596 (Cal. App. 1994) (jurisdiction termination standards)
- People v. Shabazz, 38 Cal.4th 55 (Cal. 2006) (statutory interpretation, harmony of provisions)
- In re Janee W., 140 Cal.App.4th 1444 (Cal. App. 2006) (jurisdiction and 364 interpretation)
- In re I.G., 226 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. App. 2014) (equitable duty to protect welfare; separation of powers)