Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jasmine M.
228 Cal. App. 4th 953
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- J.T., born 2008/2009, became a dependent under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 due to mother Jasmine M.’s instability; father was incarcerated.
- J.T. lived with his paternal grandmother for extended periods (2010–2012) and formed a strong bond.
- In Sept. 2012 the juvenile court returned J.T. to mother’s custody under DCFS supervision; in Aug. 2013 the court terminated dependency jurisdiction.
- Prior juvenile orders provided for paternal-grandmother visits; mother refused to make J.T. available and filed a § 388 petition to limit or modify those visits.
- The juvenile court denied the § 388 petition and ordered unmonitored visitation for paternal grandmother (every other Monday 10 a.m.–1 p.m.), finding visitation served J.T.’s best interests.
- Mother appealed, arguing the visitation order exceeded the juvenile court’s authority and violated her constitutional parenting rights under Troxel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Jasmine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court had authority to order post-termination visitation with a nonparent | § 362.4 authorizes the juvenile court to issue custody/visitation orders when terminating jurisdiction | Juvenile court lacked authority; Family Code § 3104 (family court grandparent-visitation framework) should govern | Held: Juvenile court had statutory authority under § 362.4 to order visitation upon termination of jurisdiction |
| Whether Family Code § 3104 procedures/presumptions applied in dependency post-termination orders | Dependency context permits juvenile-court exit orders under W&I Code; Family Code presumptions need not apply | Family Code § 3104 (and its presumption against grandparent visitation when parent objects) must control | Held: Family Code § 3104 does not automatically apply in juvenile dependency proceedings; § 362.4 controls exit visitation orders |
| Whether ordering visitation over mother’s objection violated her Fourteenth Amendment parental-rights (Troxel) claim | Juvenile court’s parens patriae role and lack of presumption of parental fitness in dependency justify ordering visitation in child’s best interest | Mother’s fundamental right to parent cannot be overridden; Troxel requires special weight to parent’s objection and forbids court-ordered visitation over a fit parent’s objection | Held: Troxel does not bar juvenile-court visitation here because mother was in dependency proceedings (no presumption of fitness) and the court considered and afforded weight to her objection; order not unconstitutional |
| Whether denial of § 388 petition to limit visits was an abuse of discretion | Evidence showed J.T.’s strong bond with grandmother, mother repeatedly failed to comply with visits, and no evidence grandmother posed harm—limiting visits would not promote J.T.’s best interests | Changed circumstances (transition complete) and mother’s ongoing custodial authority justify modifying/limiting visitation | Held: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supported maintaining unmonitored visitation as in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality: parental objections to third‑party visitation entitled to special weight; judicial review must accord parent significant weight)
- In re Hirenia C., 18 Cal.App.4th 504 (1993) (juvenile court may order post‑termination visitation with nonparents who have formed substantial parental relationship)
- In re Robin N., 7 Cal.App.4th 1140 (1992) (juvenile court authorized to award visitation to de facto parent after dependency termination)
- Chantal S. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 196 (1996) (dependency court’s parens patriae role and the limited applicability of family‑court statutes in juvenile proceedings)
- In re Jennifer R., 14 Cal.App.4th 704 (1993) (family‑court statutory presumptions do not necessarily apply to juvenile exit orders)
- Rich v. Thatcher, 200 Cal.App.4th 1176 (2011) (family‑court standard requiring clear and convincing evidence to overcome parental presumption under Fam. Code § 3102/3104)