Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Christopher M.
228 Cal. App. 4th 1310
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Christopher M. is the dependent child in a juvenile case; father seeks review of jurisdiction/disposition orders.
- The petition alleged father failed to provide necessities of life; he was incarcerated when Christopher was born and remained intermittently engaged in proceedings.
- Father sought to be recognized as presumed father and to receive reunification services; the court denied services and did not appoint counsel at adjudication.
- By 2013, father was out of prison, employed, living with paternal grandmother in San Diego, and seeking custody with counseling and visitation.
- The juvenile court sustained two allegations (b-9 and g-5) regarding failure to provide necessities, and adjudicated Christopher dependent; disposition followed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the jurisdictional findings based on father’s conduct and remanded for a new dispositional hearing considering placement with father under section 361.2(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jurisdiction findings against father were supported by substantial evidence | Christopher’s case rests on father’s conduct; lack of support showed risk | Father argues no substantial evidence supports the findings | No substantial evidence; findings reversed |
| Whether section 300(b) evidence supported jurisdiction | There was risk due to failure to provide necessities | Father had working, living arrangements; no ongoing risk at hearing | Insufficient evidence under §300(b) |
| Whether 361.2 placement should be considered with father on remand | Placement with noncustodial parent appropriate if detriment not shown | Placement with father should be considered; not yet proven feasible | Remand to consider placement with father under §361.2(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2011) (judicially determined justiciability and effective relief in dependency)
- Maggie S. v. Superior Court, 220 Cal.App.4th 662 (2013) (denied jurisdiction under §300(b) where no present risk from custodial arrangement)
- In re John M., 217 Cal.App.4th 410 (2013) (361.2 placement analysis; two-step process; detriment standard)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (2012) (placement considerations and jurisdictional consequences)
- In re J.O., 178 Cal.App.4th 139 (2009) (analysis of §300(g) timing and caregiver arrangements)
- In re Nickolas T., 217 Cal.App.4th 1492 (2013) (§361.2 placement; nonoffending/noncustodial considerations)
- In re V.F., 157 Cal.App.4th 962 (2007) (placement considerations under dependency proceedings)
- In re Adrianna P., 166 Cal.App.4th 44 (2008) (placement and dependency considerations in §361.2 context)