Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jacob M.
3 Cal. App. 5th 1084
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Julien (born 2010) lived with his mother; Father (Jacob M.) had unmonitored weekend visits but the parents never lived together.
- DCFS received reports raising concerns about parental substance use, mental health, and safety; mother reported incidents implicating Father (including DUI with another child as passenger).
- DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code §300 petition alleging risk from Father’s substance abuse and mental issues; juvenile court detained the child and released him to the mother.
- At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing the court sustained several allegations, declared Julien a dependent, released him to the mother, and ordered monitored visits, substance-abuse treatment, and other services for Father.
- The court phrased the removal/limitation order as made under Welf. & Inst. Code §361(c)(1); Father appealed arguing §361(c)(1) applies only to parents with whom the child resides and thus the court lacked authority over a noncustodial parent.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCFS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §361(c)(1) authorizes removal/limitations as to a noncustodial parent | §361(c)(1) applies only to parents with whom the child resides; it did not apply because Julien did not live with Father | The dependency court may restrict a noncustodial parent’s access under other dependency statutes | §361(c) does not apply to nonresident parents; court erred to cite §361(c) but error not prejudicial because other statutes authorize the order |
| Whether Father forfeited the right to raise the statutory-authority objection on appeal | Father preserved no objection in dependency court so forfeited | Appellate review appropriate because issue is legal and affects parental rights | Appellate court exercised discretion to consider the legal issue (not forfeited) |
| Whether the citation error was prejudicial (requiring reversal) | Denial of fundamental parental right and future disadvantage; reversal required because no other statute authorizes the order | Dependency court may rely on §361(a)(1) and §362(a) to limit access of a noncustodial parent; factual findings support restrictions | No prejudice shown; order stands but must be restated as under §361(a) and §362(a) |
| Mootness of challenge to pre-detention/removal orders | Father challenged predetention removal/detention | Those orders were superseded by disposition orders | Challenge to detention orders moot because disposition superseded them |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dakota J., 242 Cal.App.4th 619 (discussing limits of §361(c) and availability of §361(a)/§362 to restrict noncustodial parents)
- In re V.F., 157 Cal.App.4th 962 (holding §361(c) does not encompass noncustodial parents)
- In re Adrianna P., 166 Cal.App.4th 44 (discussing appellate review of dependency issues)
- In re Sabrina H., 149 Cal.App.4th 1403 (detention orders are temporary and may be moot once disposition occurs)