In re J.M.
California Court of Appeal
50 Cal. App. 5th 833 (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) (plaintiff) initiated a dependency proceeding, seeking to remove infant J.M. from the home of his mother, Y.C. (defendant), and father based on neglect stemming from domestic violence between the parents. The juvenile court removed J.M., placing him in foster care. Y.C. was granted visitation and reunification services, including counseling, domestic-violence classes, and parenting classes. After Y.C. moved out of the father’s house, the court ordered a 29-day visit with J.M in Y.C.’s home. However, that visit ended when DCFS informed the court that Y.C.’s housing violated zoning laws and that Y.C. had stopped participating in domestic-violence therapy. J.M. returned to his foster caregivers, but the court ordered ongoing reunification services for six months. During that period, Y.C. continued visits with J.M., completed all required classes and counseling, and obtained a new job. She also voluntarily took anger-management classes. However, she violated court orders by having contact with the father, failing to obtain a mental-health evaluation, and continuing to live in illegal housing. The juvenile court terminated reunification services but stated that it would consider reinstating them if Y.C. found proper housing, stopped contact with the father, and complied with all other court orders. Three months later, Y.C. petitioned to regain custody of J.M. or obtain further reunification services because she had complied with the court’s requirements. However, the court denied the petition, primarily because it concluded that Y.C. lacked special training to care for J.M.’s special needs, as he had since been diagnosed with autism and developmental issues. The court later entered an order terminating Y.C.’s parental rights. Y.C. appealed both decisions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rothschild, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.