Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Frank R.
192 Cal. App. 4th 532
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Children were detained in Dec 2007 after mother was arrested for child cruelty; father’s whereabouts were unknown and the children were placed in foster care.
- Department located father living in a motel with unstable housing and no stable employment; he received SSI benefits and had a prior drug-related arrest history.
- Father was deemed a presumed father and sought reunification; the petition targeted mother for abuse/neglect and father for failure to provide, but father requested dismissal from the petition.
- The court sustained the petition as to mother and dismissed the failure-to-provide claims against father; father was nonoffending and did not request custody or reunification services.
- During the dependency, father’s visits and contact were irregular; transportation aid was requested but largely unused; he never sought custody or housing assistance and had minimal engagement with the case over approximately two years.
- At the 366.26 hearing, the court terminated parental rights without making the required finding of detriment by clear and convincing evidence for father; on appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a proper detriment/unfitness determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a clear and convincing finding of unfitness before termination | Father: no such finding was ever made; he was nonoffending and not seeking custody | Department: detriment standards can support termination given evidence of unfitness | Reversed and remanded for a proper unfitness/detriment finding by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gladys L., 141 Cal.App.4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (due process safeguards and pre-termination findings)
- In re P.A., 155 Cal.App.4th 1197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (determinant findings of detriment may support termination when supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re G.S.R., 159 Cal.App.4th 1202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (dependency findings must be clear and convincing for termination)
- In re A.S., 180 Cal.App.4th 351 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (clarifies standards for termination without misapplying unfitness concepts)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (demonstrates applicability of detriment framework)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (Cal. 1993) (establishes Santosky-based requirements for termination findings)
- Jennifer T. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.4th 254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (reaffirmed procedures for notice and writ rights in dependency appeals)