Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Darlene F.
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- This is the mother's second appeal after the court asserted jurisdiction over Ryan and Kaitlyn.
- The remittitur remanded to address a more definite visitation order and potential custody changes.
- On remand, the juvenile court summarily denied the mother's section 388 petition seeking modification.
- DCFS interim report suggested that Ryan's custody could be returned to Mother or that joint custody be considered; Garland contested the reports.
- The July 18, 2011 hearing limited the court to refining visitation, but a full custody reconsideration was anticipated on remand.
- The Court of Appeal held the juvenile court could consider new facts and petition on remand and reversed for a hearing on the 388 petition and custody/visitation plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court hear a section 388 petition on remand? | Mother argues the court could consider new developments. | The court contends remittitur foreclosed relitigation of prior issues. | Court may consider new developments on remand. |
| May the court consider DCFS interim report on remand? | Mother seeks review of new information affecting welfare of child. | Court should not revisit matters outside the remittitur scope. | Interim report may be considered when remand permits comprehensive review. |
| Does remand bar reconsideration of custody arrangements? | Remand directives allow adjustment to best interests. | Remittitur fixes the issue and precludes reopening custody. | Remand does not preclude custody reconsideration; future custody may be revised. |
| Is it permissible to revise the existing family law order after remand? | New evidence supports modifying the custody/visitation plan. | Modification should align with appellate directive and prior record. | Court may issue a revised order after considering new facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Candace P., 24 Cal.App.4th 1128 (1994) (remand and continued services may require new determinations on reunification)
- In re Francisco W., 139 Cal.App.4th 695 (2006) (remittitur determines the scope of rebid and read as a whole with appellate opinion)
- In re Anna S., 180 Cal.App.4th 1489 (2010) (remanded dependency orders must be viewed with current circumstances)
- In re Roger S., 4 Cal.App.4th 25 (1992) (juvenile court must consider case worker recommendations affecting visitation)
- In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal.4th 398 (1994) (§ 388 permits new facts to be brought to court during pendency)