Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Angela B.
231 Cal. App. 4th 663
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parents (Mother Angela B. and Father) had two young children; in Aug. 2013 Father stabbed Mother during an argument while Mother was holding one child; Father admitted a long history of meth use and later pled to assault with a deadly weapon.
- DCFS filed dependency petitions for the two youngest children under Welf. & Inst. Code §300 (a), (b), (j); children were placed with Mother, father removed from home.
- DCFS recommended family maintenance services for Mother, including a domestic violence program for victims; Mother objected to group treatment and argued for individual counseling or a time-limited education class.
- At disposition the juvenile court sustained the petitions, ordered Mother to participate in a domestic violence victims’ support group (not time-limited), and said program counselors would determine how long Mother must attend.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by (1) ordering an open-ended support group rather than a time-limited education program, and (2) delegating authority to the program counselors to set duration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forfeiture of appellate challenge | Mother failed to preserve any specific objection | Mother’s counsel objected to group requirement and preservation established | No forfeiture; Mother preserved the issues by timely objection at disposition |
| Type of domestic violence program | Support group appropriate and consistent with recommendation for a domestic violence program for victims | A time-limited domestic violence education class (or individual counseling) was appropriate; broad open-ended support group was not supported by evidence | Court did not abuse discretion in ordering a support group; program type was within court’s broad §362(d) authority |
| Open-ended duration of participation | Length may be contingent on progress; court can leave duration open-ended | Open-ended requirement (weeks could vary widely) is unreasonable without limits | Open-ended enrollment is permissible; juvenile court may condition participation on progress |
| Delegation of duration to program counselors | Progress evaluations by counselors can inform court decision | Court improperly delegated final authority to counselors to decide when Mother’s requirement ends | Reversed in part: court abused discretion by delegating final determination solely to counselors; ultimate determination must be made by the juvenile court; remand for new order consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (2004) (preservation rule—appellate review ordinarily limited where objections not raised below)
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (2009) (case-plan orders must eliminate conditions that led to dependency; broad juvenile court discretion under §362)
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (1996) (open-ended counseling as condition is within juvenile court authority and does not violate due process)
- In re James R., 153 Cal.App.4th 413 (2007) (reversal where court delegated all visitation decisions to private program without individualized judicial determination)
- In re Donnovan J., 58 Cal.App.4th 1474 (1997) (court may rely on therapists’ input but must make final visitation determinations)
- In re E.A., 209 Cal.App.4th 787 (2012) (general objections insufficient to preserve issues; must specify grounds)