L.C. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cnty.

317 Cal.Rptr.3d 325

L.C., Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Real Party in Interest.

B331041

Court of Appeal,

Second District, Division 7.

Filed January 16, 2024

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Petition granted. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP01555)

Children’s Law Center of California, Taylor Lindsley and Sara Taylor, for Petitioner and Minor.

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Law Office of Emily Berger, Emily Berger and Nicole J. Johnson, for Mother.

No appearance for Respondent.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

FEUER, J.

In 2022 then-three-year-old L.C. was detained from his mother, D.C. (Mother), following her arrest for transporting six boxes of fentanyl pills with L.C, in the car. After the juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1),¹ and removed L.C. from Mother’s care, Mother returned to Mexico (where she had grown up and her family lived) on the advice of her criminal defense attorney concerning criminal charges relating to her arrest. She maintained her positive relationship with L.C. through weekly video calls and completed a three-month in-patient drug treatment program, individual counseling, and parenting classes, as required by her case plan. Mother also submitted to random drug testing, but the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) had concerns about the validity of the tests performed by Mexico’s child protection agency, Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (DIF).

At the 12-month status review hearing the juvenile court terminated Mother’s reunification services and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to terminate her parental rights and consider a permanent plan for adoption. In finding a substantial risk of detriment to L.C.’s safety and wellbeing if he were returned to Mother’s care, the court focused on Mother’s failure to return to California for drug testing and other services; speculation that L.C. would not receive necessary developmental services in Mexico despite assurances from DIF; and Mother’s refusal to surrender herself in response to the arrest warrant.

L.C. seeks extraordinary writ relief, arguing substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that returning him to Mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to his safety or well-being. We agree. Unlike the criminal justice system, with its punitive purpose and focus on rehabilitation of the offender, the juvenile dependency system is designed to serve the best interests of the child and to reunify the family when it is safe to do so. A parent’s decision not to return to the United States—whether in response to a criminal prosecution or the immigration laws, or for some other reason—should not prevent reunification with the parent’s child where reunification is in the best interests of the child. This is especially the case here, where Mother has diligently complied with her case plan and maintained a bond with L.C., and DIF can provide services to Mother and L.C. under the continued supervision of the Department. We now grant the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. L.C.’n Emergency Removal from, Mother and Detention

On April 20, 2022 the Department received a referral for three-year-old L.C. alleging general neglect and caretaker absence after Mother was arrested in a parking lot in West Hollywood for transporting six boxes of pills later identified as fentanyl. A social worker from the Multi-Agency Response Team arrived at the scene and spoke with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DBA) agent and Mother. The DBA agent explained he had arranged for a controlled buy of 70,000 fentanyl pills, and Mother and another individual arrived in separate cars with six and two boxes of pills, respectively. L.C. was inside Mother’s ear.

Mother explained to the social worker that someone had offered her a job to transport the pills. Mother initially stated this was the first time she brought her son along when transporting drugs, then indicated it was the first time she had ever transported drugs. The social worker observed L.C. was clean, well-groomed, and dressed appropriately, and he did not have any physical signs of neglect. The social worker was unable to interview L.C. because of his age.

Following Mother’s arrest, L.C. was placed in foster care. The United States Attorney filed a Magistrate’s Complaint against Mother on April 22, 2022 charging her with violation of title 21 United States Code section 841(a)(1) for manufacturing, distributing or dispensing a controlled substance, or possessing a controlled substance with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense. On April 25 Mother was released from custody, and the juvenile court granted an expedited removal order to detain L.C. from her. The Department reported the DEA had tested and confirmed the transported pills were fentanyl.

On April 26, 2022 the Department filed a petition on behalf of L.C. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g), alleging Mother endangered L.C. by transporting drugs while he was in the vehicle and failing to make an appropriate plan for his care and supervision.² The juvenile court detained L.C. from Mother and ordered monitored visitation.

B. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report and Hearing

A social worker interviewed Mother on May 3, 2022. Mother was born in Guadalajara, Mexico and came to the United States when she was 24 years old. Mother reported her childhood was stable and free from abuse and neglect, and she denied having any substance abuse or mental health issues. Mother had been taking care of L.C. since he was born in November 2018 in Montebello, California. Mother and L.C.’s father had divorced two years earlier, and Mother was no longer in contact with him. Mother had no prior criminal history.

Mother stated L.C. was asleep in the ear and woke up when she was arrested. Mother explained why she transported the pills: " ‘I saw it as an easy thing to do, and I needed the money …. I understand that it was a mistake, but I am willing to do everything I can to rectify this.’ " The social worker stated Mother was "polite," "sounded remorseful," and was "willing to face the consequences of her actions." The social worker observed that L.C. appeared to be developmentally on target.

On May 12, 2022 the criminal case against Mother was dismissed without prejudice. The next day Mother tested negative for drugs and alcohol.

At the May 20 jurisdiction and disposition hearing the juvenile court sustained the allegation under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), that Mother had endangered L.C. by transporting boxes of fentanyl pills while L.C. was in the vehicle, and the court removed L.C. from Mother’s care. The court dismissed the remaining counts. The court ordered Mother to complete a drug and alcohol program with aftercare, parenting classes, and individual counseling to address case issues, and to submit to random on-demand drug and alcohol testing. The court ordered monitored visitation at least three days a week for two hours or by phone, with the Department having discretion to liberalize visitation.

C. The Reunification Period

On May 24, 2022 Mother reported to the social worker that Mother’s criminal case attorney had advised her that she faced deportation because her illegal status had been disclosed in the criminal case. The attorney recommended Mother take the necessary steps to legalize her status in the United States. Mother had come to the United States with permission to remain for six months, but she stayed beyond the permitted time. Mother planned to return to Mexico, then request permission to come back legally to the United States so she could reunify with L.C.

On May 30 Mother traveled to Guadalajara, Mexico, and the next day she reported to the Department that she had arrived in Mexico. Mother contacted DIF for assistance in locating services to comply with her case plan. On June 2 L.C.’s maternal grandparents arrived in Long Beach, California. They remained in the United States until the end of August 2022 and visited L.C. twice a week during that period, They requested that L.C. be placed with them to live in Guadalajara. On August 5 the juvenile court granted an ex parte application filed by the Department requesting an International Interstate Compact for Placement of Child (ICPC) home study be prepared for DIF to evaluate the maternal grandparents’ home in Guadalajara.

On July 18 Mother reported to the Department that her criminal case had been reopened. Mother’s attorney advised her to stay in Mexico and to wait "for a less strict judge to be assigned to the case." Mother wanted to return to Los Angeles, but she planned to follow her attorney’s advice.

During the initial six-month reunification period, Mother remained in communication with L.C. through video calls. She also was in frequent contact with the social worker and L.C.’s caregivers. Mother called L.C. once a week by video for about an hour each call. According to the caregiver, L.C. "responded to mother’s affection with smiles and playful behavior during the call[s]" and "would enjoy to hear mother’s voice."

On September 22 L.C. was placed with his maternal great-aunt and great-uncle. Mother consistently had 30-minute calls with L.C. on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and sometimes Saturdays. Maternal great-aunt reported that Mother was loving and affectionate during the calls, but the calls had a temporary, adverse impact on L.C.’s mood. Maternal great-aunt believed the mood change resulted because L.C. missed Mother’s attention and interaction.

Mother sought assistance from DIF to find an in-patient drug treatment program. Mother stated she did not have any...