Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Robert M.
232 Cal. App. 4th 1394
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- This is an appeal from a juvenile court disposition placing C.M. with DCFS for placement with maternal grandparents.
- Father M. is noncustodial and nonoffending; C.M. had unresolved contact with father, but had lived with maternal grandparents since birth.
- January 9, 2014 incident involving mother led to DCFS petition under §300(a),(b); children detained and placed with maternal grandparents.
- March 21, 2014 dispositional hearing found it detrimental to place C.M. with father, and ordered custody with DCFS; father appealed.
- The appellate court held the detriment finding was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and remanded for a new dispositional hearing under §361.2(a).
- On remand, new evidence or changed circumstances could be considered; otherwise dispositions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the detriment finding under §361.2(a) was properly made under the clear and convincing standard. | Father argued there was no clear and convincing evidence of detriment. | DCFS argued that the evidence, including C.M.’s wish to stay with grandparents and other factors, supported detriment. | Detriment finding reversed; insufficient evidence under the high standard. |
| Whether placement with father would be detrimental to C.M.’s well-being given her wishes and circumstances. | DCFS contended factors supported detriment due to C.M.’s stated preferences and circumstances. | Father contends factors do not establish substantial risk of detriment; other factors are insufficient. | No substantial evidence of detriment; remand for new dispositional hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Abram L., 219 Cal.App.4th 452 (2013) (noncustodial parent's rights require clear and convincing detriment standard)
- In re Patrick S., 218 Cal.App.4th 1254 (2013) (placement preferred unless substantial detriment; high standard governs)
- In re Luke M., 107 Cal.App.4th 1412 (2003) (placement with noncustodial parent requires showing detriment; wishes considered but not controlling)
- In re John M., 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 (2006) (established relationship and other factors must meet high detriment standard)
- In re Marquis D., 38 Cal.App.4th 1813 (1995) (explains high standard of proof and implications for parental rights vs. noncustodial placement)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (2004) (sibling relationships not always determinative of detriment)
- In re Jonathan P., 226 Cal.App.4th 1240 (2014) (nonoffending parent need not prove lack of detriment; burden on objecting party to show detriment)