Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Miguel S.
3 Cal. App. 5th 977
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael (born 2011) lived with Mother and Father; at age 4 juvenile proceedings were initiated after allegations the father sexually touched an older half‑sister and committed domestic violence against Mother.
- Law enforcement and social workers investigated; Mother and Michael left the home for a shelter and an emergency protective order was issued against Father.
- The Department petitioned under the Juvenile Court Law and initially released Michael to Mother while extending temporary restraining orders against Father.
- At the adjudication/disposition hearing the juvenile court found substantial danger to Michael and ordered Michael removed from Father’s physical custody; Mother retained custody subject to a restraining order limiting Father to supervised visits.
- Father did not challenge jurisdictional findings or seek more contact; he appealed solely arguing the statute prohibits removing a child from only one custodial parent when the child remains with the other.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the statute permits removal from one parent in appropriate circumstances and that the juvenile court did not err as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welfare & Institutions Code §361(c) allows removal of a child from only one custodial parent | The Department (plaintiff/respondent) supported removal from Father as authorized and appropriate given danger to the child | Father argued §361(c) does not permit removal from only one custodial parent when the child can remain with the other parent, so removal exceeded statutory authority | Court held §361(c) can authorize removal from one parent only; leaving child with the other parent can be an alternative but does not categorically preclude removal from the offending parent |
| Whether section 361.2’s placement provisions foreclose single‑parent removal | The Department argued placement rules do not bar removing a child from one custodial parent when custody with the other parent remains viable | Father argued §361.2 lists placements excluding the custodial parent and thus shows legislature intended child to remain with custodial parent rather than be removed from the other parent | Court rejected Father’s reading: §361.2 addresses placement when child has no home; it does not preclude removal from one custodial parent where keeping the child with the other parent is not an adequate protective alternative |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marquis H., 212 Cal.App.4th 718 (2013) (issue of statutory interpretation reviewed independently)
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (2009) (statutory provisions must be read in context of dependency scheme)
- In re D.G., 208 Cal.App.4th 1562 (2012) (approved removing child from father while children remained with mother)
- In re E.B., 184 Cal.App.4th 568 (2010) (children removed from father and allowed to remain with mother)
- In re Jason L., 222 Cal.App.3d 1206 (1990) (child removed from divorced father and placed with mother)
- In re Damonte A., 57 Cal.App.4th 894 (1997) (statutory scheme does not permit removing a child and immediately returning the child to same parent)
- In re Andres G., 64 Cal.App.4th 476 (1998) (same principle prohibiting immediate return to same parent)
- In re N.S., 97 Cal.App.4th 167 (2002) (same principle regarding inconsistent removal/return)