Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jonathan G.
2 Cal. App. 5th 536
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Department detained children Andrew (8) and Kailey (4) after reports of mother Gloria’s physical abuse; Gloria pleaded no contest to abuse-related counts and jurisdiction was sustained as to her.
- Jonathan G. was identified as the presumed father; he was incarcerated in Texas at the time of the petition and told the social worker he might have Native ancestry but gave no tribe or further information.
- The amended petition alleged a single §300(b) count against Jonathan for failing to provide necessities while incarcerated, asserting this placed the children at substantial risk.
- At the October 5, 2015 hearing Jonathan appeared by phone; counsel argued the §300(b) count should be dismissed (relying on In re Anthony G.); the juvenile court nevertheless sustained the §300(b) allegation, interpreting it as a failure to protect rather than a failure to provide.
- The juvenile court removed the children from both parents under §361(c) and ordered placement with the maternal grandmother; the appellate court reversed jurisdiction and removal as to Jonathan and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of §300(b) jurisdiction over Jonathan (failure to provide/protect) | Department: Jonathan’s incarceration and lack of provision meant he failed to provide, creating substantial risk | Jonathan: Absent parent’s nonprovision alone does not justify jurisdiction where children were well cared for; no failure to protect alleged | Reversed: §300(b) finding against Jonathan unsupported—no evidence children lacked necessities or that incarceration prevented arranging care; court improperly construed petition as failure to protect without notice |
| Removal under §361(c) vs custody consideration under §361.2 for noncustodial parent | Department: Removal appropriate based on true findings and risk to children | Jonathan: As noncustodial parent, his custody claim must be considered under §361.2, not §361(c) | Reversed: Jonathan was noncustodial; disposition must be reconsidered under §361.2 (placement with requesting parent unless detrimental), on remand court to reassess custody request |
| ICWA inquiry and notice obligation | Jonathan (initially): his statement that he may have Indian ancestry should trigger ICWA notice | Department: Jonathan’s vague statement insufficient to trigger ICWA notice | Remand: Court must reconsider ICWA applicability and ensure Department satisfies its affirmative, continuing duty to inquire and to investigate Jonathan’s possible ancestry before finding ICWA inapplicable |
| Due process/notice fairness when petition construed as failure to protect | Jonathan: He had no notice or opportunity to defend a failure-to-protect allegation because petition pleaded only §300(b) failure to provide | Department: Court relied on petition and evidence as it saw fit | Held: Court erred by treating the pleaded §300(b) count as alleging failure to protect; material variance prejudiced Jonathan’s rights; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anthony G., 194 Cal.App.4th 1060 (discusses limits on jurisdiction based on absent parent’s noncontribution)
- In re X.S., 190 Cal.App.4th 1154 (reversing §300(b) jurisdiction where child was adequately cared for despite absent parent’s nonprovision)
- In re M.M., 236 Cal.App.4th 955 (incarceration alone does not establish jurisdiction unless parent cannot arrange care)
- In re Aaron S., 228 Cal.App.3d 202 (§300(g) applies when incarcerated parent cannot make arrangements for child’s care)
- In re S.D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (no jurisdiction if incarcerated parent can arrange for care)
- In re Monica C., 31 Cal.App.4th 296 (incarcerated parent must arrange for adequate care during incarceration)
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (ICWA and California law impose an affirmative, continuing duty to inquire and, where applicable, give notice)
- In re Levi U., 78 Cal.App.4th 191 (a relative’s suggestion of possible Indian ancestry may require notice in some circumstances)