Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. L.C.
212 Cal. App. 4th 1117
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- In December 2011, DCFS investigated mother after she was arrested for violating a restraining order; John M., who is blind with autism, was found alone, dirty, and undressed in the back of mother's SUV.
- Mother and John were homeless, living in a car; father had provided some support and temporary housing but mother refused to cooperate with services.
- DCFS filed a two-count petition under WIC §300(b): (1) endangering the child by leaving him in a car without supervision; (2) medical neglect for failing to obtain necessary medical/Regional Center services.
- John was detained in foster care and later released to father; at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court dismissed the first count and amended the second to a ‘limited ability’ theory.
- Mother asked to dismiss the petition; DCFS argued the petition (as amended) was sufficient and that jurisdiction could be based on mother’s failure to obtain services and supervise John.
- The court sustained the amended petition and, over mother’s objection, ordered removal of John from mother’s custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the amended petition facially sufficient? | Mother argued amendment rendered petition non-jurisdictional. | DCFS contends amendments were supported by reports; insufficient notice issue is moot. | Amendment sufficiency not required; jurisdiction upheld on substantial evidence. |
| Was there substantial evidence to support jurisdiction under §300(b)? | Mother claimed no substantial risk or serious harm. | DCFS demonstrated ongoing neglect and risk: unsupervised car placement, noncooperation on services, schooling neglect, and poor caregiving. | Yes; substantial evidence supported jurisdiction. |
| Was there substantial evidence to support dispositional removal? | Removal was unnecessary given family resources and potential for supervision. | Past and ongoing conduct showed removal was needed to protect John; noncompliance with court orders showed risk. | Yes; substantial evidence supported removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (Cal.App.4th 2011) (notice mootness and sufficiency standards for petitions)
- In re Javier G., 137 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal.App.4th 2006) (consider current risk when evaluating past conduct)
- In re Janet T., 93 Cal.App.4th 377 (Cal.App.4th 2001) (absence of regular school attendance can create risk for health/safety)
- In re Maria R., 185 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (parent's refusal to cooperate supports removal necessity)
- In re Cole C., 174 Cal.App.4th 900 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (jurisdictional findings prima facie indicate inability to safely remain at home)
- In re D.G., 208 Cal.App.4th 1562 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (review of dispositional order; substantial evidence standard)
- In re J.N., 181 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (analysis of risk in context of parent's current understanding of past conduct)