Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
M.E. was born in Venezuela in December 2016 to H.E. (father) and W.U. (mother). The parents separated in 2018; father last saw M.E. in March 2023 and spoke with her only twice before these proceedings. Mother and M.E. immigrated to the United States in spring 2023, and mother's partner Carlos M. soon joined them; their daughter C.M. was born in June 2024. In October 2024, M.E. reported that Carlos had sexually assaulted her. Mother accused her of lying, struck her, and pressured her to recant. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services took the children into protective custody, placed them with foster parents, and filed a dependency petition.
Father learned of the proceedings in December 2024, appeared remotely from Venezuela, and was found M.E.'s presumed father in January 2025. The court ordered a home assessment and regular video or phone visits. Father lived in a one-bedroom Caracas home with no bedroom doors and no working shower. Visits began in February 2025, but father called late for two visits and missed two others; by April 2025 M.E. did not want to talk to him.
At the May 2025 disposition, the court removed M.E. from mother and, over father's custody request, found by clear and convincing evidence that placement with father would be detrimental to her safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being, citing her bond with her sister, her unresolved mental problems, her opposition, and father's minimal efforts. At the November 6, 2025 six-month review, the court found he missed 14 visits and made no substantial progress, and found placement with either parent would create a substantial risk of detriment. At the January 6, 2026 twelve-month review, the court again found placement with father detrimental but found placement with mother would not create a substantial risk of harm, ordering M.E. returned to mother contingent on case-plan compliance. Father filed notices of appeal on November 6, 2025 and January 23, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2(a), placement with a noncustodial, nonoffending parent is mandatory unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that placement would be detrimental to the child's safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. The court weighs all factors bearing on net harm, including the parent-child relationship, the child's preference, and loss of sibling relationships. The department raised procedural objections to review of the disposition order, but the court declined to resolve them because it affirmed that order on the merits.
Substantial evidence supported the disposition finding. M.E. had suicidal ideation, nightmares, tantrums, and inappropriate sexualized behavior. Father had spoken to her only twice in the year and a half before the proceedings and missed or shortened several visits. Placement in Venezuela would uproot her from her mother and sister, with in-person visits requiring travel to another continent; detriment does not depend on the parent's blame. The court distinguished Patrick S. and John M., where the noncustodial parent had not missed visits and the child was willing to stay with him, unlike M.E.'s strong resistance.
The court also affirmed the six- and twelve-month review orders. At review hearings, the department must prove by a preponderance of the evidence under section 366.21, subdivisions (e)(1) and (f)(1), that placement would create a substantial risk of detriment. M.E. still needed significant services, father had made little progress in developing their relationship, and placement in Venezuela still risked disrupting her family ties, so substantial evidence supported both findings.
Key Takeaways
- At disposition, placement with a noncustodial, nonoffending parent is mandatory unless clear and convincing evidence shows detriment under section 361.2(a).
- The detriment analysis focuses on net harm to the child—relationship, preference, sibling bonds—regardless of the parent's fault.
- A distant placement may support detriment but is not by itself sufficient.
- At review hearings, the department must prove a substantial risk of detriment by a preponderance under section 366.21.
- The court affirmed on the merits without resolving the procedural disputes over the disposition appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision shows how the detriment standard applies when the noncustodial parent lives abroad: the focus is net harm to the child, not the parent's blame or control over distance. The court weighed M.E.'s emotional state, expressed wishes, and bonds with her mother and sister, and applied the distinct clear-and-convincing and preponderance burdens at disposition and review.