Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. L.T.
217 Cal. App. 4th 426
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- E.T., a 21-month-old, was removed from mother L.T. and placed with maternal grandmother after a Department investigation flagged neglect and safety concerns.
- Mother had a history of illicit drug use and mental health issues; she initially refused to identify E.T.'s father and had limited contact with the Department.
- Paternity testing was pursued; in May–June 2012, the Department disclosed potential paternal involvement and the court ordered paternity testing.
- Paternity testing established that C.M. was E.T.’s biological father, and the court later awarded unmonitored visits to father, placing E.T. in his home under a family maintenance plan.
- The Department filed a supplemental petition (section 342) alleging father’s drug history and criminal background; the court ultimately dismissed that petition against father.
- The court placed E.T. with father under a disposition that granted visitation details to be determined by a future, detailed visitation order; mother appealed challenging custody and visitation rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father could obtain custody without presumed-father status | Mother contends only presumed fathers may obtain custody. | Father argues placement allowed as a biological relative under section 361.3; mootness aside, he asserts placement was proper. | Court erred; father not a presumed father, and 361.3 does not override 361.2 for a parent. |
| Whether the order granting custody to father was proper given absence of presumed father status | Mother asserts lack of presumption precludes custody in father’s favor. | Father maintains placement under 361.3 as a relative is permissible. | Custody to father reversed; not proper under 361.2 and 361.3 analysis. |
| Whether section 361.3 favored placement with a relative over a nonoffending parent | Mother argues relative preference in 361.3 should yield to nonoffending parent under 361.2. | Father contends 361.3 applies to relatives; placement with him should be considered. | Relatives’ preferential placement does not override nonoffending parent priority; error to place with father. |
| Whether the visitation order provides adequate framework for mother’s visits | Mother argues the order lacks frequency and duration, rendering visits illusory. | Father/Department did not oppose remand and acknowledged need for a proper schedule. | Visitation order reversed and remanded to specify frequency and duration. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kobe A., 146 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (presumed father standards; custody analysis for dependency cases)
- In re Paul H., 111 Cal.App.4th 753 (Cal.App.4th 2003) (presumption of father status and custody rights)
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993) (burden on father to demonstrate presumed status; pre- and post-birth conduct)
- In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal.App.4th 2003) (four-category framework for fathers in dependency cases)
- In re S.H., 111 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal.App.4th 2003) (visitation framework and court's control over schedule)
- In re Rebecca S., 181 Cal.App.4th 1310 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (need for definite visitation frequency and duration in orders)