Recent Dependency Cases

Dependency (current through 09/12/25)

By: John Nieman

The precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Author’s note is italicized.

In re X.D
9/10/25, CA 2/5 B338140
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B338140.PDF

Father appealed Jurisdiction findings under Welfare & Institutions Code (W&I) §300(b) and (g). The Appellate Court focused on the W&I 300(g) basis. A single justified basis is sufficient for jurisdiction. W&I §300(g) is justified when a parent is unable to care for a child and unable to arrange for a child’s care. Father was incarcerated before and during the events and proceedings that required out-of-home care for his daughter.

Father requested removal from the maternal grandmother with whom the child had been housed, and placement with the paternal grandmother or a paternal uncle. Father contended that he needn’t be able to arrange for actual provision of care, just possible care-takers. He claimed his historical lack of demonstrated interest and care in the minor shouldn’t be a factor. The Appellate Court rejected both of these contentions based on various cases. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that his proposed caretakers couldn’t care for his daughter. Yet the record reflected that the LA Department of Children and Family Services investigated the paternal grandmother and paternal uncle. Neither was willing or able to provide an appropriate placement for the child. Finally, father claimed he had arranged for the care of the minor (with the maternal grandmother) at least within the meaning of the statute. The Appellate court observed he had not made that arrangement, and emphasized that he had requested removal from the maternal grandmother. Affirmed.