California: Appeals Court Upholds Loss of Parental Custody Rights for Failing to Protect Child in Family Home...BY: DEBORAH F.

Link for opinion: http://web.lexisnexis.com/research.retrieve?pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tagge... The California Court of Appeals held in In re T.W., 214 Cal.App. 4th 1154, 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669 (2013) LEXIS 238 that parental custody can be terminated if it is proven that a violation of section 387 of the Welfare and Institutions Code has occurred, and reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of a child from both parent’s custody. The four year old child, T.W. was removed from the mother, L.T., when the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency filed a petition in juvenile court. The petition alleged that L.T. subjected T.W. to a substantial risk of harm after subjecting T.W.’s sister, to serious physical harm and excessive discipline. The Court placed T.W. in the custody of her father, Timothy. Later it was revealed that Timothy had sexually abused T.W.’s older sister, and she was removed from his custody and returned to the mother. During the next 12 months, both parents refused to participate in services referred to as “reunification” programs. L.T. was found to lack the necessary parental skills to provide the child with safety and security against possible sexual abuse of the father. She refused to complete court-ordered services and refused to keep the father away from the child. The father, who is homeless refused to complete sex offender programs and violated a court order against unsupervised visits. The Court found the social worker’s testimony credible and substantial evidence to support a violation of section 387 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. They applied the procedures and protections of section 361 that required, “before a minor can be removed from the parent’s custody, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that there is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home.” Welf. & Inst. Code § 361, subd. (c)(1). The court relied on this high standard of proof by which a removal is made because it “is an essential aspect of the presumptive, constitutional right of parents to care for their children.” ( In re Henry V., 119 Cal.App.4th 525). When the parents cannot care for their children or disregard efforts to reunite with their children, additional action is required. The court found substantial evidence to supported that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the removal from L.T.’s custody and both parents consistently ignored the restrictions on visits and demonstrated unwillingness to participate in any type of services.