SAVANNAH B. v. Superior Court
Before: Curry
Opinion
CURRY, J.
Petitioner Savannah B., a minor, filed the instant petition for writ of mandate challenging the lawfulness of a dispositional order of the respondent juvenile court which, following the recommendation of real party in interest the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), required the minor to be removed from the custody of her mother, Marva B., and suitably placed, yet simultaneously begin a “60-day visit” with Marva. We issued an order to show cause and temporary stay
[160]
order. Following our issuance of the order to show cause and temporary stay order, the juvenile court vacated its order and entered a new order that the minor be placed in the home of Marva. Thereafter, Savannah requested that we permit her to withdraw the petition for writ. Despite the issue becoming moot in this manner, we denied the request, believing this to be an important issue which is likely to recur, but is of such a nature that it tends to become moot before a decision on the merits can be completed.
Background
In October 1999, Savannah was detained and placed in the home of her maternal aunt due to Marva’s persistent abuse of cocaine. By the time of the disposition hearing, in February 2000, Marva had enrolled in a 10-month residential rehabilitation program and completed a parenting class. She had been regularly visiting Savannah, had tested negative for drugs for three months, and had made substantial progress in her inpatient program. Her counselor felt that she was ready to have the minor reside with her. At the hearing, DCFS requested both a finding that there was a substantial danger to the physical and emotional health of the minor and no reasonable means to protect her without removal from the parent’s physical custody,
and
an order placing Savannah with Marva for a 60-day visit.
Discussion
Under the Welfare and Institutions Code, the court, once it has adjudged the minor to be a dependent, “may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any parent. . . .” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (a).) However, a dependent child cannot be taken from the physical custody of its parents “unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of . . . fl[] ... a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor or would be if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parents’ . . . physical custody.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) If the court does order the minor removed from the custody of the parent and there is no noncustodial parent with whom he or she may be placed, “the court shall order the care, custody, control, and conduct of the child to be under the supervision of the social worker who may place the child in any of the following: [^] (1) The home of a relative, including a noncustodial parent, [f ] (2) A foster home in which the child has been placed before an interruption in foster care . . . . [f] (3) A suitable licensed community care facility. flO (4) With a foster family agency to be placed in a suitable licensed foster family home or certified family home which has
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)