Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Alameda County Social Services Agency removed an eight-year-old girl, L., from her mother, L.W., after the mother was hospitalized due to a mental health crisis. L. had been living with her mother, stepfather, maternal grandmother, and siblings. The family had recently moved to a homeless shelter. When the mother left the shelter and did not return, the shelter called the police, and L. was taken into protective custody. The mother later contacted the Agency, explaining she had a mental health breakdown and was hospitalized. She had bipolar disorder and schizophrenia but had resumed taking her medication and was receiving psychiatric care.The juvenile court found that the mother’s mental health issues and the lack of a safe caregiver justified dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g). The court ordered L. to be placed with her biological father and terminated dependency jurisdiction. The mother appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the court’s findings.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court found no evidence that L. was left without a safe caregiver, as she was with her grandmother at the shelter. The court also found that the mother’s mental health was stable, and she was receiving treatment. There was no substantial evidence that the mother’s mental illness or purported substance abuse placed L. at substantial risk of physical harm or illness. The court concluded that the juvenile court erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g).The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order and vacated the disposition order and all subsequent orders as moot. View "In re L.W." on Justia Law

In this case, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved with a family after law enforcement discovered child pornography in the parents' home. Both parents admitted to possessing child pornography, and the mother admitted to posting inappropriate images of their daughter, M.V., online. M.V. was subsequently placed with her paternal grandparents, and the juvenile court sustained allegations of sexual exploitation against both parents, declaring M.V. a dependent child and removing her from her parents' custody. The parents received reunification services until November 2020, and in December 2021, the juvenile court terminated their parental rights. However, this order was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for a supplemental bonding study and a new permanency planning hearing.On remand, a new expert conducted a bonding study, and the permanency planning hearing took place in June 2024. The court reviewed extensive documentary evidence, including reports on M.V.'s well-being, her relationship with her parents and grandparents, and her expressed wishes to be adopted by her grandparents. The expert, Dr. Gonzalez, concluded that M.V. had a secure attachment to both parents and that terminating the parental relationship could be detrimental to her. However, the court found that the parents had not proven the beneficial parental relationship exception, noting that the expert's opinions were based more on general psychological principles than on the specific facts of the case.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights. The appellate court found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the expert's opinions and that the evidence did not compel a finding in favor of the parents. The court also addressed and dismissed allegations of judicial bias and due process violations raised by the parents. View "In re M.V." on Justia Law

D.F. (father) appealed the juvenile court's orders appointing a guardian for his son, J.F., and terminating jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He argued that the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) failed to meet their initial inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California statutes (Cal-ICWA).The juvenile court had appointed a guardian for J.F. and terminated its jurisdiction. Father sought a conditional reversal of the guardianship order and a remand to ensure compliance with ICWA and Cal-ICWA. No respondent's brief was filed, but father, the child's counsel, and the Department filed a joint stipulation for conditional affirmance of the guardianship, limited reversal of the termination of jurisdiction, and remand for further inquiry.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court found that the Department failed to contact maternal relatives to inquire about the child's potential Indian ancestry, constituting reversible error. However, the court disagreed with the need to contact the paternal great-aunt, as she is not considered an "extended family member" under ICWA.The court conditionally affirmed the guardianship order but conditionally reversed the order terminating dependency jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to order the Department to interview the maternal grandmother and aunt about the child's Indian ancestry and report the findings. If no further inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the termination order will be reinstated. If additional inquiry or notice is required, the court must ensure compliance with ICWA and Cal-ICWA. View "In re J.F." on Justia Law

J.B. (Minor) was placed with A.R. (De Facto Parent) for nearly two years after being removed from B.B. (Mother) and J.S. (Father). Parents filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking additional reunification services and increased visitation. The trial court granted these petitions but did not remove Minor from De Facto Parent's care. De Facto Parent appealed, arguing that the juvenile court should not have granted additional reunification services as Parents failed to show changed circumstances and that it was not in Minor’s best interest.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted the section 388 petitions, providing Parents with six months of reunification services and increased visitation. The court noted that Minor would remain with De Facto Parent for the time being, with the goal of eventually returning Minor to Parents. The section 366.26 hearing, which would address the termination of parental rights and adoption, was vacated.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services that De Facto Parent did not have standing to appeal the grant of the section 388 petitions. The court noted that as a de facto parent, A.R. did not have the right to reunification services, visitation, custody, or placement of Minor. The appeal was dismissed for lack of standing. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

Defendant Benny Townes was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his biological daughters, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Jane Doe 1, who was 16 years old, was raped and impregnated by the defendant. Jane Doe 2, who was 13 and 14 years old at the time, was raped, sodomized, and subjected to lewd acts by the defendant. The defendant admitted to having sexual intercourse with Jane Doe 1 but argued that it was consensual and not against her will.The Superior Court of Riverside County found the defendant guilty on all counts, including forcible rape, incest, lewd acts with a minor, and sodomy. The court sentenced him to 150 years to life in prison. The defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he raped Jane Doe 1 by means of force or duress, and therefore, his convictions on counts 1 and 2 should be reversed. He also argued that the multiple victim enhancement allegations should be reversed if counts 1 and 2 were overturned.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of duress, which can be purely psychological. The defendant had instilled in Jane Doe 1 the belief that he was the son of God and that disobeying him would result in divine retribution. This psychological coercion was sufficient to constitute duress under Penal Code section 261, subdivisions (a)(2) and (b)(1). The court concluded that the threat of divine retribution, as taught by the defendant, was enough to uphold the convictions for forcible rape. View "People v. Townes" on Justia Law

G.R. lived with her mother and had no contact with her alleged father, R.R. In 2017, G.R. was hospitalized and diagnosed with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. The Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services became involved when the mother failed to secure necessary mental health services for G.R. The mother did not have contact information for R.R. The juvenile court initially found R.R. to be G.R.'s alleged father, later amending the order to reflect this accurately. R.R. was incarcerated for domestic violence and had an extensive criminal history. The court denied services to R.R. and ordered no visits until he contacted the Department.In May 2018, the juvenile court removed G.R. from her mother's custody and placed her with a maternal aunt. In November 2020, R.R. expressed a desire to have a relationship with G.R., but did not follow through with setting up visits. In January 2023, R.R. filed a deficient section 388 petition, which the juvenile court denied. By June 2023, G.R. had spoken with R.R. by phone but was not ready for in-person visits. In September 2023, the juvenile court appointed G.R.'s caregiver as her legal guardian, ordered monitored visits for R.R., and terminated its jurisdiction.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court dismissed R.R.'s appeal of the juvenile court's order requiring monitored visits, stating that as an alleged father, R.R. could not show he was aggrieved by the order. The court emphasized that an alleged father has no rights to custody, reunification services, or visits unless he establishes paternity and achieves presumed father status. R.R. did not establish paternity, and thus had no standing to appeal the visitation order. View "In re G.R." on Justia Law

The case involves a father (H.B.) appealing a juvenile court's disposition order that declared his two sons dependents of the court, placed them in the custody of their mother, and provided family maintenance services to the mother and supportive services to the father. The San Francisco Human Services Agency filed a petition alleging that the minors were at substantial risk of harm due to the father's substance abuse and provision of drugs to one of the children. The father contested the findings, arguing that the juvenile court applied an incorrect legal standard and that there was insufficient evidence to support its findings.The juvenile court sustained the petition's allegations, assumed jurisdiction over the children, and ordered their placement with the mother. The court found that the father posed a substantial danger to the children due to his substance abuse and poor parenting decisions, including providing drugs to his son. The court applied section 362, subdivision (c), rather than section 361, subdivision (c), concluding that the children were not removed from a custodial parent since they remained with their mother.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that the juvenile court erred in applying section 362(c) instead of section 361(c), as the children were effectively removed from the father's custody. The appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding of substantial danger to the children if returned to the father's care. However, it concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal. The appellate court reversed the disposition order and remanded the case for a new disposition hearing, instructing the juvenile court to make its decision based on the facts existing at the time of the new hearing. View "In re H.B." on Justia Law

A minor child, Baby Girl R., was abandoned by her mother, S.R., shortly after birth. S.R. gave birth in a homeless encampment and was using methamphetamines daily. Baby Girl R. tested positive for the drug and exhibited withdrawal symptoms. S.R. was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold due to paranoia, delusions, and aggression. After being discharged, S.R. left Baby Girl R. at the hospital and returned to the encampment. The Department of Family and Children’s Services initiated dependency proceedings, and Baby Girl R. was placed in protective custody. Despite diligent efforts, the Department could not locate S.R.The juvenile court placed Baby Girl R. in foster care and ordered reunification services for S.R., despite her unknown whereabouts. The court found that S.R.’s location was unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate her. Baby Girl R. appealed, arguing that the court should have bypassed reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1). While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for S.R. at the six-month review hearing and placed Baby Girl R. with her maternal grandparents.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that the appeal was moot due to the termination of reunification services but exercised discretion to address the merits. The court concluded that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) does not mandate bypassing reunification services when a parent’s whereabouts are unknown despite a diligent search. The juvenile court has discretion to grant or deny reunification services in such cases. The appellate court found no error in the juvenile court’s decision to order reunification services for S.R. and affirmed the disposition order. View "In re Baby Girl R." on Justia Law

Juan A., a teenager and dependent of the juvenile court, was removed from parental custody and placed in long-term foster care after the court found he was not adoptable and no legal guardian was available. The court terminated family reunification services but did not terminate parental rights. Juan attended many hearings during his dependency case but was absent from the status review hearing that is the subject of this appeal. At that hearing, the court denied Juan’s trial counsel’s request for a brief continuance to allow Juan to be present, which was argued to be his right under Welfare and Institutions Code section 349.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County had previously declared Juan a dependent, removed him from parental custody, and ordered family reunification services for his mother. These services were terminated in August 2021. At a section 366.26 review hearing in June 2023, the court decided not to terminate parental rights and ordered Juan to remain in foster care. In subsequent hearings, the court found Juan’s placement appropriate and continued to order permanent placement services.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and found that the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance request, as Juan had a right to be present at the hearing under section 349. The appellate court determined that this error prejudiced Juan, as his presence could have led to additional support services to help him achieve his educational and employment goals. The appellate court reversed the orders issued at the March 28, 2024, permanency planning review hearing and remanded the case for a new hearing, ensuring Juan’s right to be present is upheld. View "In re Juan A." on Justia Law

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law