Skip to content
Name: In re L.B. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 827
Case #: F086109
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/13/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 1/9/2024

Active resistance to substance abuse treatment, for purpose of bypass pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), includes the prompt resumption of substance abuse shortly after successful reunification. Parents had a long history of interaction with the Department, including dependency actions in 2011, 2016, and 2020. In 2022, the minors were again removed due to parents’ domestic violence and substance abuse. Both parents began engaging promptly with services. At the disposition hearing, reunification services were ordered for parents, over minors’ counsel’s objection. The juvenile court noted that it did not believe it could bypass the parents under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13)…

View Full Summary
Name: In re K.B. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 689
Case #: A167385
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/03/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 11/30/2023

There was insufficient evidence to support dispositional findings that the Agency exercised due diligence to identify, locate, and contact relatives for placement. Minors were removed due to the parents’ substance abuse issues. Following removal, the Agency contacted both maternal and paternal grandmothers to inquire about Indian heritage. There was no information in the record that either of these relatives were asked about being available as a placement or other interest in participating in the case. The parents also identified a maternal aunt who was not contacted by the Agency. Minors were placed in a non-relative foster home and the court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re R.Q. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 462
Case #: E080765
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/16/2023

The juvenile court properly exercised its broad discretion to make orders in the best interest of the minor when it placed minor with biological father over presumed father’s objection. The minor was removed from presumed father and stepmother due to physical abuse. Mother had substance abuse and mental health issues. The presumed father was not the minor’s biological father. C.H., minor’s biological father, had visited with the minor five to ten times, including overnight visits, though minor was not aware he was her biological father. Following removal, C.H. began visiting with minor by weekly video chats and in person when…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Gael C. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 220
Case #: B317838
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 10/09/2023

Father's appeal of juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders became moot when he failed to appeal the order terminating jurisdiction. The minors were removed from the parents due to domestic violence. The juvenile court found jurisdiction and removed the minors from Father's care, placing them in the custody of Mother. Father appealed this decision. About nine months later, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and issued custody orders. Father did not appeal this order. Division Seven of the Second Appellate District dismissed the appeal, finding that the case was moot based on its own precedent in In re Rashad D.

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jayden M.
Case #: B321967
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/27/2023

When considering a parent’s reasonable effort to address a problem from a previous dependency case, the juvenile court should look at the entire time period between when the earliest sibling was removed from the parent’s custody and the current dispositional hearing. The minor was removed from Mother in 2021 due to her drug use during pregnancy. The juvenile court had previously found jurisdiction over five of Minor’s six siblings. Minor’s oldest sibling was removed from Mother in 2001, when he was born testing positive for drugs. Two additional siblings were born positive for drugs in 2003 and in 2020. Mother…

View Full Summary
Name: In re M.D.
Case #: D081568
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/11/2023

Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition findings where the findings were not based solely on indigence, but also other factors. The eight-year-old minor (Minor) was removed from Father due to his failure to adequately supervise her and to provide her with adequate food and shelter. Father regularly left Minor unsupervised in their apartment without readily available food. The apartment was in an unsanitary condition. Minor was not enrolled in school and was far behind educational milestones. She lacked knowledge of basic hygiene and exhibited food insecurity behaviors. Father denied any wrongdoing and did not engage in predisposition…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.F.
Case #: A166150
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/17/2023

There was insufficient evidence to support jurisdictional and dispositional findings as to Father where there was no evidence that domestic violence or substance abuse was ongoing. The minor was removed from Mother due to her mental health and substance abuse. Father had earlier moved out of state when the minor was three months old, but continued to provide him with financial support. The move was prompted by a domestic violence incident with Mother where both parents were arrested. The minor was not present during the incident. Father reported he had a history of substance abuse but had been sober for…

View Full Summary
Name: In re M.C.
Case #: A165424
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/06/2023

There was insufficient evidence to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that placing the minor with Father would be detrimental. The minor came to the attention of the Agency when his half-brother was born testing positive for drugs. The minor was in the care of a family friend while Mother gave birth because Father was a trucker who often had to travel for days at a time. Father offered to make arrangements for placement with his relatives until he could return to California. At a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court found true allegations against Father, finding…

View Full Summary
Name: In re T.R.
Case #: E079291
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/18/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 1/27/2023

Bypass of reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) was improper where severe physical abuse occurred in a prior dependency case and Father had promptly engaged in predisposition services. The minors were removed from the parents due to domestic violence, excessive corporal punishment, and Mother’s sexual abuse of one of the minors. The minors had previously been removed five years earlier due in part to physical abuse by Father, who was then subsequently bypassed pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) [infliction of severe physical harm]. In the months leading up to the jurisdiction/disposition hearing in the present case, Father…

View Full Summary
Name: In re L.O.
Case #: E075921
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/29/2021

Insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court's finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d) where minor displayed sexualized behavior after having possibly witnessed a parent engaging in sexual activity. Following removal from his parents, L.O. was exhibiting troubling sexualized behavior and each parent blamed the other for exposing L.O. to inappropriate sexual conduct. At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, jurisdictional allegations under section 300, subdivision (d) were found true as to Father. The appellate court reversed in part, and affirmed in part. A child comes under section 300, subdivision (d), when the child has been sexually abused, or…

View Full Summary