Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
S.E. (Mother) appealed juvenile court orders concerning her four-year-old daughter R.C. and two-year-old son K.C. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b)(1), alleging inadequate supervision, substance abuse, and medical neglect. The investigation began after a neighbor found R.C. outside the family's Palmdale apartment and K.C. opened the door crying. Neighbors and the apartment manager described repeated unsupervised exits through a broken window. The children had speech delays and lapses in medical care.
At the initial detention hearing, the court detained Minors from Mother and released them to Father. In July 2025, the Department asked the court to remove Minors from Father, and the court granted the request after reports of visitation-order violations and missed medical responsibilities. At the August 7, 2025 hearing, the court sustained the amended petition and found "a lot of child safety issues." Although Mother had boarded the window, improved her home, and reduced her marijuana use, the court declined to return the children until she tested clean. Mother challenged the jurisdiction findings, the removal order, and the Department's Cal-ICWA inquiry compliance.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed jurisdiction based solely on the inadequate-supervision count. The evidence was comparable to, and stronger than, In re M.D.: the children repeatedly left the apartment and wandered the complex, neighbors sometimes fed them or could not return them to an awake adult, and law enforcement became involved. Unlike the eight-year-old in M.D., these children were two and four with speech delays. Substantial evidence supported dependency oversight. Because that ground independently sustained jurisdiction, the court did not consider the substance-abuse and medical-neglect counts.
The court rejected Mother's argument that repairs and changed work hours eliminated the need for jurisdiction. Mother and her partner no longer lived together, daycare had no start date and would not cover late evenings, and Mother continued denying repeated unsupervised incidents despite contrary evidence. The juvenile court could reasonably view that denial as showing the underlying problem remained unresolved, and it had only four months to assess whether supervision had durably improved.
Removal required clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger and no reasonable means of protection short of removal under section 361(c)(1). Although safety risks persisted, a door latch and boarded window had mitigated the most pressing concerns. The juvenile court did not actually make the required substantial-danger finding; instead it conditioned return on completely clean drug tests, a standard untethered from the statutory rule. Some demonstrated marijuana use, without more, was too attenuated from the requisite substantial danger. The court reversed removal and remanded for a new disposition hearing to reconsider removal under section 361(c) as informed by the opinion, considering then-existing circumstances. It declined to exercise discretion to resolve the moot Cal-ICWA challenge because reversal requires further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated unsupervised wandering by very young children with speech delays supplied substantial evidence for dependency jurisdiction based solely on inadequate supervision.
- Home repairs and changed work hours did not defeat jurisdiction where childcare remained uncertain and the parent denied repeated supervision failures.
- Affirming jurisdiction did not validate removal, which required clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger and no reasonable alternatives.
- Removal was reversed because the juvenile court did not make the required substantial-danger finding and instead relied on clean drug tests, a standard untethered from the statutory rule.
- The remand requires a new disposition hearing to reconsider removal under section 361(c), considering circumstances existing at that hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the inquiries governing dependency jurisdiction from those governing removal. Evidence supporting court oversight does not automatically satisfy section 361's more demanding removal standard, particularly when specific hazards have been addressed and the juvenile court fails to make the required substantial-danger finding.
The disposition leaves matters open. The court did not determine whether substance abuse or medical neglect independently supported jurisdiction, did not hold removal could never be justified, and did not resolve the Department's Cal-ICWA inquiry adequacy. The juvenile court must reconsider removal at a new hearing, with further opportunity for Cal-ICWA inquiry if the children are not returned to Mother.