In re A.M.
Filed 9/18/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re A.M., a Person Coming B343879 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 24CCJP03240A DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Commissioner. Reversed in part and remanded. Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________
A juvenile court may not remove a child from her father simply because her father is in prison. If the father has made a suitable plan for the proper care of his daughter during his incarceration, the court must respect this parent’s right to the care, custody, and management of his child, which is a fundamental liberty interest. The juvenile court incorrectly removed A.M. from her father. A.M. rightly appeals this aspect of the court’s dispositional order. Citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. I The Department involved itself with this family shortly after A.M.’s birth. The allegation was that the mother’s substance abuse put A.M. at risk and that the father failed to protect A.M. from her mother. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over A.M., who began living with her father when she was a few months old. They lived with paternal aunt Martha M. and with Martha’s two children. Also in this household was the paternal grandmother. When the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction, it awarded the father sole physical custody, the parents joint legal custody, and the mother unmonitored visits. Years passed. Shortly before A.M. turned seven, police discovered a gun and hundreds of pills in the father’s car. The father went to prison. Beforehand, he arranged for Martha to care for A.M. when he was incarcerated. He gave Martha A.M.’s educational and medical documents and a notarized letter establishing temporary custody. The father called A.M. every other day. For about a month, the father’s plan worked. But then, when the mother picked A.M. up for a visit, she learned the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)