Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. T.A.
225 Cal. App. 4th 803
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- DCFS petitioned for jurisdiction and disposition under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300(a), (b), and (j) and removed Ashly and Cristina from the home; mother appeals only the dispositional order.
- Evidence showed physical abuse by Mother (extension cord, belts, hangers) toward P.F., Cristina, and Ashly, while Father claimed limited awareness and responsibility.
- DCFS removed the children to their maternal aunt/uncle after detention; DCFS reports claimed no reasonable means to protect without removal, but failed to specify those means or evidence of attempts.
- DCFS and the court failed to document or articulate the reasonable efforts required by rule 5.678(c)(2) and failed to identify any alternatives to removal.
- Mother admitted some abuse, completed some services, and planned further classes; hearings sustained the petition but the dispositional order was challenged as unsupported by substantial evidence and improper procedure.
- The reviewing court reversed the dispositional order and remanded for a new hearing with proper consideration of reasonable means and required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was supported by clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger | Ashly and Cristina argue there were reasonable means to protect them without removal. | DCFS contends no reasonable means existed to protect without removal. | No; the evidence failed to show no reasonable means and a lack of meaningful options. |
| Whether DCFS complied with rule 5.690(a)(1)(B)(i) requiring discussion of reasonable efforts | DCFS record lacked discussion of reasonable efforts and specific alternatives. | DCFS argues the court had sufficient basis for removal. | No; no discussion of reasonable efforts or described alternatives in DCFS reports. |
| Whether the court adequate stated the facts supporting removal as required by §361(d) | Court did not state the facts supporting its removal decision. | Court relied on the DCFS findings. | No; the court failed to state the factual basis for removal. |
| Whether the court should have considered removing the offending parent as a reasonable means | Removal of the offending parent should have been considered as a reasonable option. | Court did not adequately explore option of removing Mother. | No; the record showed this option was not properly considered. |
| Whether the dispositional order should be reversed and remanded for compliance with law | Substantial evidence did not support removal under the required standards. | Dispositional order should stand if evidence supports removal. | Yes; dispositional order reversed and remanded for proper proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jasmine G., 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (2000) (requires clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger and no reasonable means to protect without removal)
- In re Henry V., 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (2004) (supports evaluating reasonable means, including in-home services and removal options)
- In re Noe F., 213 Cal.App.4th 358 (2013) (applies substantial evidence standard with higher clear-and-convincing threshold for removal)