Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jonathan Q., 5 Cal. App. 5th 336

Anthony, a 10-year-old, was the subject of a December 5, 2014 dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code §300 based on allegations about father Jonathan’s unresolved mental health and substance use issues.
At petition filing, Anthony had been living with his maternal step‑grandmother, Francisca, for ~6 months; Jonathan had sole legal and physical custody from a prior order but was not residing with the child.
The juvenile court sustained the §300(b) petition after Jonathan pleaded no contest.
At disposition (July 29, 2015) the court found by clear and convincing evidence removal was necessary and ordered Anthony removed from his parents’ custody, citing §361(c).
Jonathan appealed solely arguing §361(c) did not authorize removal because Anthony did not reside with him when the petition was initiated; the Department conceded the point.
The Court of Appeal agreed the court cited the wrong statutory subsection but concluded the removal order was authorized under the broader powers in §§361(a) and 362(a) and that the error was harmless; the disposition order was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of §361(c) to remove a child from a parent who was not living with the child when the petition was initiated	Department defended removal as proper and urged court discretion to protect child	Jonathan: §361(c) limits removal to cases where child "resides" with parent when petition was initiated; he did not reside with Jonathan then	Court: §361(c) does not apply because it protects only parents with whom the child resided at petition initiation; removal under §361(c) was error here
Authority to remove nonresident custodial parent and effect of statutory citation error	Department (and juvenile court) argued removal and reunification services are proper to protect child under dependency scheme	Jonathan argued removal must satisfy §361(c) wording and thus was unauthorized	Court: §§361(a) and 362(a) independently authorize reasonable dispositional orders (including removing a child from a nonresident custodial parent when necessary); mis‑citing §361(c) was harmless because findings supported removal and required services

In re Dakota J., 242 Cal.App.4th 619 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (interpreting “resides” in §361(c) and holding removal under §361(c) requires child to live with parent at petition initiation)
In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2012) (overview of dependency scheme and emphasis on retaining parental rights consistent with child safety)
In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (Cal. 2009) (dependency law’s preference for preserving family relationships)
In re Corrine W., 45 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2009) (juvenile court’s broad discretion at disposition under §362)
In re D’Anthony D., 230 Cal.App.4th 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (wrong statutory citation at disposition can be harmless when evidence supports order)
In re Julien H., 3 Cal.App.5th 1084 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (orders limiting parental control may be authorized under §§361(a) and 362(a) even when §361(c) is inapplicable)
In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (discussion of custodial v. noncustodial parent concepts)