Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Paul M.
211 Cal. App. 4th 754
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Drake M., born Aug 2010, came to DCFS attention May 10, 2011, for alleged parental marijuana use and mother's substance abuse history
- DCFS detained Drake; detention order specified against the mother, with Drake placed with the father under DCFS supervision
- Petition alleged father’s legal medical marijuana use rendered him incapable of providing regular care (count b-3); mother faced separate counts
- Adjudication and disposition on Oct 5, 2011 placed Drake with father; ordered mother to undergo reunification services and testing, and father to random drug tests and parenting/drug counseling
- Trial court found jurisdiction under §300, subd. (b) against father based on alleged marijuana use; later reversed on appeal
- Court reversed judgment in part as to father and reversed ancillary orders tied to count b-3; affirmed other aspects of the judgment
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence to support §300(b) jurisdiction for father | DCFS contends father’s marijuana use/endangered condition supported jurisdiction | Father argues no current substance abuse or risk; evidence insufficient | No substantial evidence; jurisdiction reversed for father |
| Definition of substance abuse for §300(b) purposes | DCFS relies on DSM-based interpretation of substance abuse | Father lacks clinical abuse diagnosis; no DSM-based proof presented | Substance abuse must be established by professional diagnosis or DSM-TR criteria; not shown |
| Whether evidence showed father failed or was unable to supervise Drake | DCFS claims ongoing marijuana use compromised supervision | Record shows Drake well cared for; no direct link shown | Insufficient link between use and inadequate supervision; not supported |
| Whether family maintenance/drug testing orders were proper given finding | Orders stem from valid §300(b) finding | No substantial basis for such orders since finding reversed | Abuse of discretion; orders tied to invalid basis; must be reversed |
| Impact of mother’s jurisdictional findings on appeal relevance | Mother’s findings keep jurisdiction; father's appeal still impactful | Focus on father; mother’s findings remain independently supported | Court reviewed merits due to potential impact on rights; nonetheless reversed as to father |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennifer A. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (defines substance abuse as current clinically diagnosed problem or DSM-TR criteria)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (use of medical marijuana alone not enough for §300(b))