Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. A.W., 236 Cal. App. 4th 955

Background

Mother A.W. was arrested May 7, 2014 for loitering for the purpose of prostitution after vice officers observed contact with drivers; her 4‑year‑old son M.M. was found in a car with A.W.’s boyfriend (Keven L.), wet/soiled diaper and a small bump on his head.
Police reported Keven L. identified himself as A.W.’s supervisor/pimp; officers arrested Keven L. for human trafficking/child endangerment and A.W. for prostitution‑related misdemeanor conduct; Department made emergency referral and detained M.M.
A.W. was in custody; she told the social worker she went to a club for a job interview and that Keven L. was the child’s babysitter and boyfriend, denying prostitution that evening and denying Keven L.’s alleged statements.
The Department placed M.M. with his maternal grandmother (approved placement) before the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing; A.W. remained incarcerated and did not appear at that hearing despite defense counsel’s request to have her produced.
The juvenile court received written reports (no live testimony), overruled defense counsel’s objection to proceeding without A.W., sustained the section 300(b) and (g) petitional allegations, declared M.M. a dependent, removed custody from A.W., and ordered reunification services.
On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, concluding the court erred by adjudicating the petition in A.W.’s absence and that the error was not harmless given the potential significance of A.W.’s live testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code §2625(d) required physical presence of incarcerated parent at contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing	Department conceded parent had right to be present but argued error harmless	A.W.: court violated statutory right by proceeding without her and without waiver or warden affidavit	Court: Penal Code §2625(d) entitles incarcerated parent to be physically present; proceeding without her over objection violated statute (reversal)
Whether the absence of A.W. was harmless error under Watson standard	Dept.: written reports and defense counsel’s arguments preserved A.W.’s case; no additional evidence would have been offered, so error harmless	A.W.: live testimony could have aided credibility and changed outcome; counsel requested production	Court: Error not harmless—live testimony on credibility was material and could have produced a more favorable result, so remand required
Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under §300(b) (failure to protect) and (g) (incarceration inability to provide)	Dept.: circumstantial evidence (police report, Keven L.’s statements, child’s condition) justified findings	A.W.: no direct evidence she solicited, child was with boyfriend, maternal grandmother was arranged and appropriate	Court: §300(b) findings turned on credibility (could be affected by live testimony); §300(g) finding unsupported because A.W. had an adequate plan (maternal grandmother) and child was placed with relative
Whether remand was required or any one valid ground could salvage the order	Dept.: if any one statutory ground is supported, remand unnecessary	A.W.: errors affected key findings and testimony could affect outcome	Court: Because §2625(d) error was prejudicial and no unassailable §300(g) basis existed, remand for new hearing with A.W. present is required

Key Cases Cited

In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (2004) (Penal Code §2625(d) requires incarcerated parent’s physical presence unless valid waiver or institutional affidavit; apply Watson harmless‑error analysis)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (standard for harmless error: reversal required if reasonably probable result would have been more favorable absent the error)
Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (2007) (oral testimony and witness demeanor are important to credibility determinations)
In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (harmless‑error doctrine applies in dependency proceedings)