Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Roland C.
243 Cal. App. 4th 178
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Father had custody of three young children (ages 5, 2, and 1) while they were already under dependency supervision due to mother’s substance abuse and an infant’s positive neonatal marijuana screen.
- Department received reports that one-year-old Jeremiah sustained a second-degree burn from an iron while in father’s care and that two young children were found unsupervised in the home.
- Father admitted smoking marijuana on a Las Vegas trip, agreed to on-demand drug testing, but either missed tests or provided a dilute urine sample; he had prior drug-related arrests and an incomplete past treatment attempt.
- Department filed a supplemental petition alleging neglect by leaving children without adult supervision and that father was a current marijuana abuser unable to provide regular care.
- The juvenile court sustained both allegations, ordered drug testing and completion of a full substance-abuse program with aftercare and 12-step participation; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported finding father is a current marijuana abuser under In re Drake M. | Father: only admitted one instance in Las Vegas; no positive tests; insufficient to show current substance abuse. | Department: admission, dilute sample, missed tests, history of substance problems, and neglectful supervision support current abuse. | Court: Affirmed; substantial evidence supports current abuse finding given admission, missed/dilute tests, history, and nexus to neglect. |
| Whether dispositional order requiring treatment and testing was an abuse of discretion | Father: treatment/testing unnecessary if abuse finding unsupported; orders unduly burdensome. | Department: services reasonably tailored to eliminate conditions endangering children. | Court: Affirmed; disposition was a reasonable exercise of discretion to protect children. |
| Whether father provided sufficient information to trigger ICWA notice | Father: provided information suggesting possible Native heritage through his lineage. | Department/court: initially did not treat information as sufficient for ICWA notice. | Court: Reversed as to ICWA finding; remanded for full ICWA inquiry and notice. |
| Whether a nexus existed between substance use and risk to children | Father: denied current use and argued incidents were isolated; no nexus. | Department: supervision lapses and lifestyle instability tied to substance use. | Court: Found a reasonable nexus; children’s tender ages and supervisory failures supported jurisdiction under §300(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (cal. Ct. App.) (defines requirement to show "current" substance abuse using DSM-IV-TR criteria)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard of review for juvenile jurisdictional findings)
- In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. Ct. App.) (juvenile court’s broad discretion in dispositional orders)
- In re Robert L., 21 Cal.App.4th 1057 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing dispositional orders and best interests test)