Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Stacey J.
242 Cal. App. 4th 619
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (Stacey J.) appealed after the juvenile court removed her three children—Faith (10), Joseph (15), and Dakota (18 at decision time, 17 at petition)—from her physical custody and ordered placement.
- Faith lived with mother; Dakota and Joseph had lived with their father’s stepfather (Michael Y.) for about five to seven years and saw mother only occasionally. Mother retained legal custody of the boys from an earlier dependency case.
- The Department filed a §300(b) petition alleging mother’s delusions, hallucinations, paranoid behavior, and later substance use; the court found the allegations true and sustained dependency jurisdiction.
- At disposition the court found by clear and convincing evidence that removal was necessary and ordered all three children removed from mother under Welf. & Inst. Code §361(c).
- Mother challenged removal of Dakota and Joseph on appeal, arguing §361(c) applies only to children residing with the parent when the petition was initiated; she alternatively argued lack of substantial evidence and that §361.2 should govern noncustodial placement.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the removal of Dakota and Joseph, holding §361(c) authorizes removal only of children residing with the parent at the time the petition was filed; it remanded for further dispositional proceedings under appropriate statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §361(c) authorizes removal of nonresident children (Dakota, Joseph) from a parent who has legal custody but does not reside with them when petition filed | Dept. argued removal of all children was warranted under §361(c) given mother’s mental health/substance issues | Mother argued §361(c) applies only to children residing with the parent when the petition was initiated; boys did not reside with her for years | Court held §361(c) does not authorize removal of children who were not residing with the parent when petition was initiated; reversal as to Dakota and Joseph |
| Whether removal order was harmless error | Dept. contended any error was harmless because evidence showed mother’s inability to care for children | Mother argued removal was prejudicial given boys’ long-term placement with relative and fundamental custody interests | Court held error was prejudicial: removal triggers heightened proof, reunification consequences; reversal required |
| Whether §361.2 (noncustodial placement) or other statutes should control placement of nonresident parent’s children after removal | Dept. argued removal order was appropriate; did not rely on §361.2 for boys | Mother argued court should have considered noncustodial placement options under §361.2 rather than removing them under §361(c) | Court did not decide §361.2’s application on merits but noted §361.2 governs placement following a valid removal; remand allows court to consider other statutes (e.g., §361(a), §362) |
| Forfeiture of appellate argument by failure to object below | Dept. argued mother forfeited challenge by not objecting specifically | Mother had objected generally and record showed boys lived apart; appellate court can address legal question | Court exercised discretion to review and rejected forfeiture argument |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D’Anthony D., 230 Cal.App.4th 292 (statutory interpretation of dependency removal standards)
- In re Abram L., 219 Cal.App.4th 452 (children not removable under §361(c) if not residing with noncustodial parent when petition filed)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (legal custody can exist while day-to-day care is delegated to third party)
- In re Henry V., 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (removal is last resort; heightened burden at dispositional phase)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (removal requires clear and convincing evidence; reunification consequences)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights are fundamental; high evidentiary standards required)