Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Elizabeth D.
234 Cal. App. 4th 438
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Detention petition (Nov 27, 2013) alleged Elizabeth had a history of methamphetamine and marijuana use and created a filthy home for three children aged 10, 8, and 6.
- Detention ordered, children placed with maternal aunt; Byron and Allan identified as presumed fathers of Emily/Michael and Heather respectively; monitored visits and random drug testing ordered.
- Jurisdiction/disposition hearing delayed past Feb 2014 due to Elizabeth’s nonresponse; Department recommended reunification services and continued monitoring.
- May 12–15, 2014: Department sought missing drug test results; Elizabeth’s counsel moved under §350(c) to dismiss; court sought complete testing data.
- Last‑minute May 12, 2014 information provided complete drug test results; court denied §350(c) motion and found Elizabeth’s drug use supported by the record; children declared dependents and placed with fathers under DCFS supervision.
- Disposition: Heather with Allan; Emily and Michael with Byron; reunification services ordered; orders affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process when court supplements evidence | Elizabeth argues court acted as advocate, violating impartiality. | Elizabeth contends supplementation expanded the Department’s case beyond proper scope. | No due process violation; court properly sought relevant evidence. |
| Continuance for good cause under §352 | Elizabeth contends lack of good cause for the three‑day delay. | Elizabeth cannot show prejudice; delay was ministerial and within limits. | No abuse of discretion; three‑day continuance within six‑month limit. |
| Section 350, subdivision (c) and post‑evidence evidence | Elizabeth argues court erred by considering additional evidence after submissions. | Mary B./Guadalupe A. principles permit supplement to protect the child’s interests. | No abuse; court acted within discretion to ensure complete record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lois R. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.3d 895 (1971) (judge must be impartial; avoid advocate role)
- Gloria M. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.3d 525 (1971) (referee questioning/witnesses; appearance of bias)
- In re Jesse G., 128 Cal.App.4th 724 (2005) (due process in contested dependency hearings)
- Guadalupe A. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.3d 100 (1991) (court may consider evidence to protect child interests)
- Pamela J. v. Superior Court, 133 Cal.App.4th 807 (2005) (judge may question to develop facts; not an umpire)
- In re S.C., 138 Cal.App.4th 396 (2006) (court may interrogate witnesses; Evid. Code 775 authority)
- In re Eric H., 54 Cal.App.4th 955 (1997) (Section 350(c) posture; comparison to nonsuit)
- Mary B., 218 Cal.App.4th 1474 (2013) (continuation to admit supplemental reports to protect child)
- In re Andrea G., 221 Cal.App.3d 547 (1990) (ample evidence supports implied finding)
- In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 (2011) (dependency purposes; best interests of child)