Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. T.D.
130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 821
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bryan D., age 12–13, had lived with his maternal grandmother since infancy; SSA investigated June 2010 after concerns he was left home alone and grandmother's whereabouts were unclear.
- Investigation showed Bryan was cared for by grandmother while legal/biological mother had a history of abuse and limited involvement; other adults (Maria T. and Manuel D.) assisted during grandmother's absences.
- Bryan was detained, placed with a maternal great-uncle, and the juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction, transferring the case to Los Angeles County for disposition.
- Grandmother filed motions to be deemed Bryan’s presumed mother or, alternatively, de facto parent; DCFS reports noted family tensions and desire for custody proceedings.
- November 2010 disposition denied both presumed mother and de facto parent status; the court allowed counseling and monitored visits; on appeal, the de facto parent denial was reversed while other rulings were affirmed.
- The appellate court held substantial evidence supported denial of presumed mother status but abused its discretion in denying de facto parent status, reversing that part of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported denying grandmother presumed mother status | Bryan | Bryan | Yes, substantial evidence supported denial |
| Whether grandmother should have been granted de facto parent status | Bryan | Bryan | No; court abused discretion in denying de facto status and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.C., 195 Cal.App.4th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (presumed parentage under §7611 discussed in dependency context)
- In re Karen C., 101 Cal.App.4th 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (discussion of who may be a presumed parent in dependency)
- In re Salvador M., 111 Cal.App.4th 1353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (elder half-sister deemed presumed mother under certain circumstances)
- In re Kieshia E., 6 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1993) (abuses of nonparent caregivers can forfeit de facto status when fundamentally inconsistent with parental role)
- In re Vincent C., 53 Cal.App.4th 1347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (grandmother granted de facto status where no substantial harm shown)
- In re Merrick V., 122 Cal.App.4th 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (discussion of harm threshold for de facto status denial)
- In re Leticia S., 92 Cal.App.4th 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (Kieshia E. interpretation applied to de facto status factors)
- In re D.R., 185 Cal.App.4th 852 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (application of Kieshia E. framework to de facto status)
- In re Jacob E., 121 Cal.App.4th 909 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (parentage-related de facto status considerations in dependency)
- In re Jose C., 188 Cal.App.4th 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (functional role vs. presumed parentage analysis)