Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. I.S.
196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 830
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- F.S., born 2010, became a dependent of the juvenile court after repeated incidents of domestic violence between mother (I.I.) and father (I.S.); the court initially placed F.S. with mother and ordered monitored visitation for father.
- On April 19, 2014, mother and father had a physical altercation at father’s apartment while F.S. was present; mother was arrested as the aggressor and later left California with F.S. to Texas without notifying DCFS, prompting protective custody and arrest warrants.
- DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 387 supplemental petition seeking to change placement because the prior dispositional order had been ineffective to protect F.S.; the court set hearings while mother and child remained in Texas.
- At the December 3–4, 2014 contested hearing mother and F.S. were absent; father and counsel appeared, DCFS reports were admitted, and father testified by the court’s invitation.
- The juvenile court sustained the § 387 petition, found by clear and convincing evidence that removal from mother’s custody was necessary under § 361(c)(1), and ordered F.S. removed and suitably placed; father was ordered monitored visitation and domestic violence treatment.
- On appeal father challenged (1) proceeding in mother’s absence and (2) sufficiency of evidence; the Court of Appeal affirmed. Post-appeal DCFS located and returned F.S. to California and the warrants were recalled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (I.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could proceed on the § 387 hearing in mother’s absence | Proceeding was proper because jurisdiction had already been established and mother had notice but declined to appear; father had opportunity to present evidence | Proceeding violated due process and deprived father of the ability to cross-examine mother and obtain current information about the child | Court: Proceeding was not prejudicial; any error in denying cross-examination was harmless because mother’s testimony could not change the outcome |
| Whether substantial evidence supported removal of F.S. from mother’s custody under § 361(c)(1) | The prior dispositional order was ineffective; repeated domestic violence in child’s presence, mother’s dishonesty, flight to Texas, and noncompliance justified removal | Father argued evidence was stale, lacking current information about child in Texas, and nexus to present risk was insufficient | Court: Substantial evidence supported removal—repeated violence, mother’s conduct and untruthfulness, flight, and lack of reasonable alternatives justified removal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.W., 214 Cal.App.4th 1154 (court explains § 387 change-of-placement procedure)
- In re A.O., 185 Cal.App.4th 103 (§ 387 requires showing prior disposition ineffective)
- In re Baby Boy M., 141 Cal.App.4th 588 (procedural caution when child and jurisdictional facts are unknown)
- In re Claudia S., 131 Cal.App.4th 236 (due process violation where parents absent, unrepresented, and without notice/advisements)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (parental domestic violence can place children at risk even if not in same room)
- In re Jeanette V., 68 Cal.App.4th 811 (due process as a flexible inquiry in dependency proceedings)
- In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (postjudgment evidence generally not considered except for mootness)
- In re Jasmine G., 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (statutory findings required for removal under § 361(c)(1))