Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. E.U.
194 Cal. App. 4th 1060
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Anthony G. is a two-year-old dependent child under DCFS; his mother and grandmother provide home and care.
- Brandon, Sr. (Anthony’s half-sibling) had a history of violence involving the family; DCFS investigated and filed a dependency petition on December 31, 2009.
- The petition asserted jurisdiction under sections 300(a), (b), and (g); DCFS later amended to name E.U. (the alleged father) under (g).
- Mother initially identified Tony G. as Anthony’s father, then corrected to E.U.; paternity testing later established E.U. as the biological father.
- E.U. contested the amendment and later the jurisdictional finding under 300(g); the court ordered him to undergo paternity testing and mandated various services.
- The juvenile court found jurisdiction under 300(g) based on E.U. not providing for Anthony’s necessities; on appeal, the court reversed only as to E.U. on the 300(g) finding, affirming other aspects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is substantial evidence supporting jurisdiction under 300(g). | E.U. argues there was no left-without-support finding. | DCFS contends mother’s care supports jurisdiction; E.U. failed to provide support. | No substantial evidence; reversed on 300(g). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Matthew S., 41 Cal.App.4th 1311 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (insufficient evidence where no neglect shown; distinction when mother provides care)
- In re Janet T., 93 Cal.App.4th 377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (reverses 300(g) where absent father lacked impact while mother provided care)
- In re J.O., 178 Cal.App.4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (affirms 300(g) where father had no relationship or support; mother’s care differentiated)
- In re James C., 104 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (waiver of challenge to petition objections; forfeit discussion)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (reviewing court may affirm on other jurisdictional bases if substantial evidence supports)
- In re John W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (child neglect and jurisdictional interplay; family-law vs dependency)