Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the State of Idaho removed five minor children from their parents' home following allegations of physical abuse. The children ranged in age from sixteen years to fourteen months. Law enforcement responded to a report of an altercation between the mother and the eldest child, during which the mother admitted to hitting the child with a plastic hanger. Other children reported frequent physical discipline, including being hit with belts and hands. The children were declared to be in imminent danger and were removed from the home.The Bannock County Prosecutor’s Office filed a petition under the Child Protective Act (CPA) to place the children in the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW). The magistrate court held a shelter care hearing and found reasonable cause to believe the children were in danger, placing them in temporary custody of IDHW. The parents objected, arguing that the removal violated their constitutional rights and that the magistrate court’s findings were unsupported by substantial evidence.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court’s adjudicatory decree. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the initial removal because the parents failed to raise the issue in the lower court. The Court also found that the challenge to the shelter care order was moot because it was supplanted by the adjudicatory decree. The Court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the older children to remain in the courtroom during the hearing and found that substantial and competent evidence supported the magistrate court’s decision to vest legal custody of the children in IDHW. The Court also declined to consider the parents' argument under the Idaho Parental Rights Act because it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "IDHW v. Doe" on Justia Law

A minor child, Rene V., was removed from the custody of his legal guardian, Dora V., by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) due to allegations of abuse and neglect. Dora was appointed as Rene's legal guardian by the juvenile court. After Rene's removal, the juvenile court ordered family reunification services for Dora, including visitation. However, Rene refused to participate in overnight visits and eventually refused all visitation with Dora.The juvenile court sustained the DCFS's petition and ordered family reunification services for Dora. At an 18-month review hearing, the court terminated Dora's reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing. Dora filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the juvenile court erred by allowing Rene to refuse visits and that no substantial evidence supported the finding that she received reasonable reunification services. The court issued an order to show cause but denied Dora's request to stay the section 366.26 hearing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that legal guardians appointed by the juvenile court are not entitled to a presumption of reunification services, unlike those appointed under the Probate Code. The court found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional reunification services to Dora. The court emphasized that the statutory scheme for dependency guardianships does not mandate reunification services and that the juvenile court's decision was in Rene's best interests. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "Dora V. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, Heather, who moved with her three children from Minnesota to Washington to escape domestic violence. After their arrival, the family experienced intermittent homelessness, and the children faced developmental and mental health challenges. Heather also struggled with mental health and substance abuse issues. The children's school reported potential physical abuse to the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), leading to the children being placed in emergency shelter care.The King County Superior Court ordered the children into emergency shelter care, and the Court of Appeals denied review. Heather sought review of the shelter care order in the Washington Supreme Court. Department II of the Supreme Court reversed the shelter care order due to the State's failure to apply the "active efforts" standard required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Washington State Indian Child Welfare Act (WICWA). The case was remanded for further fact-finding. On remand, the trial court kept the children in shelter care, finding that returning them to Heather would place them in substantial and immediate danger.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether RCW 13.04.033(3) requires a lawyer to obtain "specific direction" from a client before seeking appellate review in child welfare cases. The court held that the statute does require such specific direction but does not mandate a separate sworn document or client signature. A notice of appeal or discretionary review filed under RAP 5.3 satisfies the requirement. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, which had dismissed the review due to the lack of a sworn, signed statement from Heather. However, as the case was moot, the Supreme Court remanded it to the trial court for any further necessary proceedings. View "In re Dependency of A.H." on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, J.R., who appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional findings and orders concerning her son, Dominic. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) had previously received multiple referrals alleging general neglect, sexual abuse, and at-risk sibling abuse within the family. The allegations primarily centered around the mother’s fiancé, Brandon, who was accused of sexually abusing the mother’s daughter, S.R., over several years. Despite these allegations, the mother denied any knowledge of the abuse and refused to cooperate with the Department’s investigations.The Superior Court of Riverside County found that the mother failed to protect her children from Brandon’s abuse and sustained allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). The court removed Dominic from the mother’s custody, granted sole physical and legal custody to Dominic’s father, Richard, and ordered monitored visitation for the mother.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings under section 300(b)(1) and section 300(j) as to Dominic. The court noted that there was no evidence that Dominic was at substantial risk of physical harm or sexual abuse. The court emphasized that the allegations against the mother were specific to her failure to protect S.R. from sexual abuse, and there was no evidence that Dominic faced a similar risk.The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to S.R. as abandoned, reversed the dispositional findings and orders as to Dominic, and vacated the true findings on the jurisdictional allegations with directions to dismiss the petition as to Dominic. View "In re S.R." on Justia Law

The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) became involved with A.N.'s family after the Rhode Island State Police informed them that A.N.'s father, Francis N., had been arrested on felony charges, including indecent solicitation of a child and electronically disseminating indecent material to a minor. Following his arrest, DCYF initiated an investigation and found that Francis had admitted to soliciting sex from a fictitious 13-year-old girl online. Consequently, DCYF filed a neglect petition against Francis, alleging that he failed to provide A.N. with proper care and supervision.The Family Court granted DCYF temporary custody of A.N. and later held a permanency hearing, ordering that A.N. remain in DCYF's care. Despite DCYF's efforts to engage Francis in services and case planning, he refused to comply, including declining to submit to a sex offender evaluation. During the neglect petition hearing, Francis invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination multiple times when questioned about his criminal charges and his involvement with A.N. The Family Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Francis neglected A.N., citing his failure to provide care, supervision, or guardianship, and his lack of engagement with DCYF.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decree. The Supreme Court held that it was proper for the Family Court to draw adverse inferences from Francis's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right in a civil proceeding. The Court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the Family Court's finding of neglect, noting Francis's refusal to engage in necessary services, his lack of financial support for A.N., and his displacement of A.N. from the family home. The Supreme Court concluded that Francis's actions demonstrated a disregard for A.N.'s safety and needs. View "In re A.N." on Justia Law

Mother, Lidia P., appealed the juvenile court's denial of her request for a restraining order against Father, Luis M., despite findings of domestic violence. The court found that Father had committed multiple acts of domestic violence against Mother and one of her children but declined to issue a restraining order, reasoning it was unnecessary since the parents no longer lived together. Instead, the court orally ordered both parents to stay away from each other.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleging that the children, A.P. and D.P., were at substantial risk of harm due to domestic violence between the parents, Mother's mental and emotional problems, Father's severe epilepsy, improper use of child safety restraints, marijuana use, and physical abuse of A.P. The juvenile court sustained some of these allegations, including those related to domestic violence and physical abuse, and removed the children from both parents. Mother then sought a restraining order, which the court initially granted temporarily but later denied permanently, opting instead for a mutual stay-away order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying the restraining order based on the parents' physical separation and the issuance of a non-CLETS stay-away order. The appellate court held that physical separation and non-CLETS orders are not adequate substitutes for the protections provided by a restraining order, which is enforceable by law enforcement. The appellate court reversed the juvenile court's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing on Mother's restraining order request, emphasizing that the juvenile court must use the correct legal standard in its determination. View "In re A.P." on Justia Law

A mother, K.G., gave birth to twins in September 2020. Due to concerns about her mental health and ability to care for the children, Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services (the agency) took emergency temporary custody of the children. The children were placed with their maternal aunt. The juvenile court adjudicated the children as dependent and continued the agency's temporary custody. K.G. was required to undergo a psychological evaluation, which revealed several mental health conditions that could impair her parenting abilities.The juvenile court later transferred temporary legal custody to the maternal aunt, with the agency maintaining protective supervision. The agency then moved for the maternal aunt to be granted legal custody and for the agency's supervision to be terminated. At the hearing, the agency presented a psychological report by Dr. Wolfgang, which K.G. objected to, arguing she should be able to cross-examine the psychologist. The juvenile court admitted the report and granted legal custody to the maternal aunt.The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court's decision, holding that K.G.'s due process rights were violated because she was not able to cross-examine Dr. Wolfgang. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate court's decision, holding that the juvenile court was permitted to consider the psychologist’s report under the statutory scheme governing legal-custody proceedings. The court found that K.G. was not denied an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Wolfgang and that her due process rights were not violated. The case was remanded to the appellate court for consideration of K.G.'s remaining assignment of error. View "In re R.G.M." on Justia Law

This case involves a mother, D.R., who appealed jurisdiction and disposition orders related to her six children, all of whom were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. D.R. argued that the dependency petitions were deficient, some of the sustained jurisdictional allegations lacked substantial evidence, and her constitutional rights were violated by depriving her of her right to present additional evidence at the continued jurisdiction and disposition hearing for two of the children, and by what she characterized as a violation of her due process right to a speedy contested jurisdictional hearing.The children's fathers were not parties in this appeal. The children were born to three different fathers, referred to as father M., father V., and father H. The mother had been married to father H., but they separated after an incident of domestic violence. Father H. had a history of alcohol abuse and criminal offenses, mostly related to driving under the influence. The mother had sole legal and physical custody of the two children she had with father H., G.H. and B.H.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two found that some of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings lacked the support of substantial evidence, requiring reversal of the jurisdictional and dispositional orders for four of the children. The court otherwise affirmed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "In re B.H." on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, Brittany B., who appealed from juvenile court orders that found her two children, B.D. and C.D., to be persons described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and placed them under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The juvenile court sustained a petition based on allegations that C.D. was born with a positive toxicology screen for opiates, and that the mother’s substance abuse placed both children at substantial risk of serious physical harm. The mother contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s jurisdictional findings.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County had previously reversed the orders. The mother had tested positive for opiates during her pregnancy and at the time of C.D.'s birth. However, C.D. did not display any symptoms of withdrawal, and the mother was attentive to both children. The DCFS did not seek to detain the children, but it did open a case and seek court supervision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Three agreed with the mother's contention and reversed the juvenile court's orders. The court found that while the mother had used prescription drugs during her pregnancy, there was no substantial evidence that the children had suffered or were at risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of the mother's substance abuse. The court also found that the mother's refusal to voluntarily submit to drug testing did not provide sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of harm to the children. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b). View "In re B.D." on Justia Law

The case involves a minor, Andrew M., who tested positive for methadone at birth and was placed in foster care. His biological parents, S.M. and A.M., failed to reunify with him. Despite this, the juvenile court decided not to terminate the parents' parental rights, citing the parental-benefit exception, which applies if a parent shows that they maintained regular visitation with the child, the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parents, and terminating that attachment would be detrimental to the child even considering the benefit of a new, adoptive home.The Superior Court of Orange County had previously ordered Andrew to be removed from parental custody and provided the parents with reunification services. However, the parents failed to reunify with Andrew and their services were terminated. The court then scheduled a permanency planning hearing.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. Andrew's appointed appellate counsel argued that the juvenile court's decision not to terminate the parents' parental rights was an abuse of discretion. The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA), although a respondent in this appeal, supported Andrew's counsel's position. The court agreed with Andrew's counsel and the SSA, concluding that the circumstances did not support the application of the parental-benefit exception. The court reversed the lower court's order and remanded the matter with instructions. View "In re Andrew M." on Justia Law