Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Juan A.
11 Cal. App. 5th 551
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Daughter (arrived from El Salvador at 11½) had severe adjustment, behavioral, and mental-health issues (major depressive disorder, PTSD, ADHD) and repeatedly threatened suicide if returned to Father’s home.
- Father and Stepmother disciplined Daughter (one slap by Stepmother, no injuries); Daughter repeatedly lied in interviews about abuse and other events.
- Daughter was involuntarily hospitalized twice (Dec 2015–Jan 2016) after suicidal threats; after the second hospitalization the Department obtained a removal order and placed her in foster care.
- The Department filed a section 300(b)(1) petition alleging Father was unable to provide appropriate care because Daughter refused to return and had threatened self-harm if returned.
- The juvenile court sustained the petition as amended under section 300(b)(1), removed Daughter from Father’s custody, and ordered reunification services for Father; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurisdiction under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b)(1) was supported | Dept: Daughter was at substantial risk of serious physical harm if returned; Father failed to protect her and did not promptly secure services | Father: Daughter’s risk stemmed from her mental-health/behavioral issues, not parental neglect; Father sought services and did not cause the risk | Reversed: Jurisdiction unsupported because risk was not "as a result of" Father’s failure or inability to supervise/protect |
| Whether parental fault/neglect is required under §300(b)(1) | Dept: §300(b)(1) may apply when a parent is unable to protect, regardless of fault | Father: Jurisdiction requires parental neglect or misconduct causing the risk | Court: Parental fault/unfitness is required; child’s conduct or therapeutic needs alone do not justify jurisdiction |
| Whether substantial evidence showed Father neglected Daughter by not taking threats seriously or delaying services | Dept: Father failed to enroll Daughter in services, considered sending her to El Salvador, minimized threats | Father: He consented to therapy/medication, sought services, filed missing-person reports, and investigated options at Daughter’s insistence | Held: Evidence did not show Father was neglectful; he acted to obtain help and protect Daughter |
| Whether disposition (removal) must be reversed if jurisdiction reversed | Dept: Removal appropriate given child’s safety risk | Father: Disposition depends on valid jurisdiction | Held: Disposition reversed as dependent on jurisdiction; removal vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jonathan B., 235 Cal.App.4th 115 (discussing substantial-evidence review of juvenile findings)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Matthew S., 201 Cal.App.3d 315 (appellate review limits on reweighing evidence)
- In re Precious D., 189 Cal.App.4th 1251 (holding §300(b)(1) jurisdiction requires parental fault/neglect)
- Lungren v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal.3d 727 (statutory interpretation—legislative intent controls)
- Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries, 6 Cal.4th 644 (tools for statutory construction when literal reading conflicts with intent)
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (purpose of juvenile court proceedings to protect abused/neglected children)
- In re Isabella F., 226 Cal.App.4th 128 (scope of dependency jurisdiction)
- In re Kaylee H., 205 Cal.App.4th 92 (dependency goals and limits)
- In re J.S., 196 Cal.App.4th 1069 (dependency system’s protective focus)
- In re R.M., 175 Cal.App.4th 986 (reversal of disposition when jurisdiction reversed)