Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Luis V.
236 Cal. App. 4th 297
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Father (Luis V.) is a registered sex offender on probation; children (Briana, Marlene, Patricia) lived with father and paternal grandmother (PGM). DCFS received a referral after Briana left home late and later reported father slapped her.
- Interviews disclosed father had been caring for and sometimes bathing/dressing the younger child (Patricia); Patricia gave equivocal statements about seeing father’s penis; older daughter reported being slapped and later self-harming.
- Probation records showed father had convictions for sex offenses and numerous probation conditions prohibiting residence with minors and contact with children; father violated probation by caring for children and possessing children’s items.
- DCFS detained the children, filed a Welfare & Institutions Code §300 petition alleging physical abuse, failure to protect, sexual abuse risk, and presence of drug use in the home.
- Juvenile court sustained multiple counts as to father (failure to register/sex-offender history, physical abuse of Briana, permitting uncle’s marijuana use access), declared the children dependents, ordered DCFS custody, and—despite DCFS’s recommendation—granted reunification services to father but required parenting, counseling, and sexual abuse counseling. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s appeal is justiciable given unchallenged jurisdictional findings as to mother | DCFS: father’s challenges are moot because unchallenged findings against mother independently support jurisdiction | Father: appellate review of his jurisdictional findings is required because they affect his status (offending vs non‑offending) and dispositional orders | Court: appeal not justiciable; because unchallenged findings as to mother suffice, and multiple sustained findings against father (including sex‑offender status) mean reversing some would not change dependency status, the court declined to reach merits. |
| Whether substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings against father (failure to register/sex‑offender history; physical abuse; permitting uncle’s marijuana use) | DCFS: evidence (probation records, witnesses, child statements) supports findings | Father: challenged sufficiency of evidence as to his conduct | Court: did not address the merits because appeal was not justiciable under precedent (I.A. and Drake M. distinction). |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering father to attend sexual abuse counseling at disposition | DCFS: counseling is reasonably necessary given father’s registered sex‑offender status, probation violations, and uncertainty about prior treatment | Father: no evidence children were sexually abused; counseling order unrelated to sustained §300(d) findings and unnecessary | Court: no abuse of discretion; court may fashion dispositional orders based on the whole record, father’s sex‑offender status and probation violations provided an evidentiary basis for sexual‑abuse counseling. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alysha S., 51 Cal.App.4th 393 (court may rely on either parent’s conduct to sustain jurisdiction)
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (appellate courts may decline to review a parent’s jurisdictional challenge when unchallenged findings against the other parent sustain jurisdiction)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (narrow exception: appellate review warranted when a challenged finding is the dispositive distinction between offending and non‑offending parent)
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (dependency protects child welfare, not to punish parents)
- In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (juvenile court has broad discretion in dispositional orders)
- In re Jasmin C., 106 Cal.App.4th 177 (court may issue reasonable dispositional orders under §362)
- In re Christopher H., 50 Cal.App.4th 1001 (dispositional orders may be based on evidence beyond the petition)
- In re Rodger H., 228 Cal.App.3d 1174 (same principle regarding dispositional breadth)
- In re Sergio C., 70 Cal.App.4th 957 (disposition requiring testing reversed where evidentiary basis was weak; contrasted here because father did not deny sex‑offender status)
- In re Basilio T., 4 Cal.App.4th 155 (reversal where no evidence supported substance‑abuse component of reunification plan)