Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Pedro Z.
190 Cal. App. 4th 12
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Presumed father Pedro Z., Sr. was incarcerated during these proceedings and the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction under §300(b) and placed Pedro with his mother under DCFS supervision.
- Father argued he was entitled to reunification services under §361.5 as a matter of law, despite Pedro being placed with Mother and under supervision.
- The record shows methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found in the home; Father admitted a long history of drug use and relapse shortly before the arrest.
- Pedro alleged witnessing drug use and occasional physical abuse by Father; Mother denied knowledge of drugs, and both parents denied domestic violence.
- At disposition, Pedro was placed with Mother with Father barred from residing in the home; the court denied Father reunification services but allowed monitoring and potential future services if Father returned to the country.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a presumed father is entitled to reunification services under §361.5 when the child is returned to a parent’s custody. | Father argued §361.5 mandatorily applies to him. | Court correctly found §361.5 inapplicable since child remained with a parent. | §361.5 does not apply when child is placed with a parent. |
| Whether services and timelines under §361.5 apply when the child remains in the home under supervision. | Father should receive reunification services despite deportation concerns. | Services governed by §362 and family maintenance, not §361.5, when child stays with a parent. | Time limits of §361.5 do not apply if the child is not removed from the parent's custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adrianna P., 166 Cal.App.4th 44 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (reunification service denial standards; when to apply 361.5)
- In re Gabriel L., 172 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (placement with a parent; 361.2/361.5 interaction)
- In re A.C., 169 Cal.App.4th 636 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (361.5 timelines do not apply when dependents remain with a parent)
- In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2003) (postjudgment evidence not admitted absent exceptional circumstances)
- In re Joel T., 70 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal.App.4th 1999) (dependency reviews and focus on reunification when safe)
- Carolyn R. v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.App.4th 159 (Cal.App.4th 1995) (definition of child welfare services and scope)