Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family v. Matthew M.
190 Cal. App. 4th 1154
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- DCFS petitioned for dependency after mother, a minor, physically argued with maternal grandmother; father initially denied paternity.
- Paternity testing established Matthew M. as the biological father; the court found a section 300, subd. (b) predicated on father's failure to provide necessities of life.
- Juvenile court placed X.S. with maternal grandmother and ordered family reunification services for both parents; mother’s conduct also implicated.
- Father later sought dismissal of the allegations against him and placement with him as a nonoffending parent, but the court rejected these requests.
- The court found true the 300, subd. (b) allegation against father, dismissed the 300, subd. (g) allegation against father, and placed the child with maternal grandmother; the appellate court reversed as to father, remanding for disposition reconsideration.
- Child remains a dependent child based on the sustaining of the mother’s 300, subd. (b) finding, which was not challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 300, subd. (b) finding against father is supported by substantial evidence | Matthew M. argues there is no substantial evidence of harm or risk | DCFS contends the record shows failure to provide necessities endangered the child | No substantial evidence; reversed as to father. |
| Whether the child’s dependency remains based on the mother’s 300, subd. (b) finding | N/A (not challenged) | N/A | Child remains dependent due to mother’s sustaining 300, subd. (b) finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Matthew S., 41 Cal.App.4th 1311 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (dependency jurisdiction under 300 must be supported by substantial evidence; harm or risk shown by actions)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (purpose of 300 is to limit intervention to serious harm)
- In re Alysha S., 51 Cal.App.4th 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (a jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both)
- In re Alexis H., 132 Cal.App.4th 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (dependency outcome may rest on either parent’s conduct)
- In re Tracy Z., 195 Cal.App.3d 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (jurisdictional findings reviewable on appeal from disposition)