Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
L.A. County Dep't of Children and Family Servs. v. Maria J. (In re Jasmin C.)
No. B160150 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55137
Description
Nonoffending Parent in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings May Not Be Required by Juvenile Court to Attend Parenting Classes
Abstract
The California appellate court held that the juvenile court had no
authority to require a nonoffending parent in a child abuse and
neglect proceeding to attend a parenting class if no substantial
evidence showed that either the parent or the child would benefit
from the counseling. After father threatened appellant mother and
their children, he was arrested and charged with assault with a
deadly weapon. Respondent Department of Children and Family
Services initiated child abuse and neglect proceedings. The
juvenile court placed the children in mother’s custody and
ordered family maintenance services for mother and family
reunification services for father, who was permitted
department-monitored visits. The court also ordered both mother and
father to attend parenting classes. Mother appealed. The appellate
court found that mother did not abuse her children, fail to protect
them, or engage in any other inappropriate behavior. Father’s
rampage was an isolated incident perpetrated only by him, during
which mother immediately interceded, physically restrained and
calmed him, and directed another individual to call the police. The
court held that, although the juvenile court had wide latitude in
making orders necessary for the well-being of a minor, it was not
justified in imposing parenting classes on appellant mother. The
court noted that recovery was particularly difficult for families
in juvenile court once a parent must abruptly move out and that
adding the unnecessary responsibility of attending a class created
more stress in an already tragic situation. The court reversed the
juvenile court’s order requiring mother to attend parenting
classes.
