Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Claudia B.

Opinion

KLEIN, P. J. Martin T. (father) appeals a custody order of the juvenile court which prohibits father from removing his daughter, Maribel T. (bom June 1998), from the State of California without prior notice to Claudia B. (mother). We direct the juvenile court to modify its written order to conform to its oral pronouncement and, as so modified, affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Maribel T. was declared a ward of the court on October 7, 1998, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 based on petition which, as sustained, alleged mother has a history of drug abuse, father is a current user of alcohol, mother and father engaged in a violent altercation in the presence [84]of the minor, Maribel T.’s five half siblings currently are dependents of the juvenile court and mother failed to comply with prior court orders regarding individual counseling.1

Maribel T. initially was placed in foster care. Father complied with all court orders, attended NA/AA (Narcotics Anonymous; Alcoholics Anonymous) and visited regularly. On March 29, 2000, father was granted overnight weekend visits and on May 11, 2000, the juvenile court ordered Maribel T. placed in father’s home. Mother reportedly was in Mexico and had not visited Maribel T. since October of 1999. Maribel T. remained in father’s care for the next year.

A report prepared for a review hearing on May 10, 2001, recommended that jurisdiction be terminated and father be granted sole legal and physical custody of Maribel T. Although mother had not contacted Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) or father, DCFS recommended that mother continue to have monitored visitation.

Mother appeared at the May 10, 2001 hearing. Mother requested visitation as agreed by the parties and requested that father not remove Maribel T. from California without prior court approval. The juvenile court continued the matter to permit father to address mother’s request. On the continued date, father argued the removal restriction requested by mother was inconsistent with sole legal and physical custody. The juvenile court concluded: “[Sjomething as permanent as a move out of state . . . does require prior notice to the other parent regardless of what the status of the custody order is ... . And in fact there was just a family law case that came down on that general point. [¶] So, in terms of moving from the state, father’s not allowed to move the child from the state . . . without prior notice to mother.”