California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re L.G. is that substantial evidence must support a juvenile court's finding that there are no reasonable means to protect a child without removal, and the Bureau must make reasonable efforts to prevent removal before a child can be taken from parental custody, under circumstances where a parent has mental health issues but the Bureau has not explored alternative interventions like family maintenance plans or evaluated available support persons.

Appeal from juvenile court orders asserting jurisdiction and removing child from custody in Superior Court, Contra Costa County.

Defendant Appellant was M.G. — the mother diagnosed with multiple mental health conditions who initially agreed to a safety plan but later wanted her infant daughter returned to her care.

Plaintiff Respondent was Contra Costa County Children and Family Services — the child welfare agency that obtained jurisdiction and removal orders based on mother's mental illness and alleged inability to provide regular care.

The suit sounded in juvenile dependency. [No cross-claims applicable.]

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were mother's long history of mental illness including diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder, Complex PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, and other conditions; her stopping prescribed psychiatric medications in November 2024; exhibiting erratic behavior and suicidal ideation; sending numerous concerning text messages to the Bureau; and initially agreeing to but then rejecting a safety plan placing her 5-month-old daughter L.G. with maternal grandmother.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court asserted jurisdiction over L.G. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b)(1)(D), removed L.G. from mother's custody, and ordered mother to complete mental health services and substance abuse assessment, ruling that mother's mental illness prevented her from providing regular care and that there were no reasonable means to protect L.G. without removal.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings 2. Whether substantial evidence supported the removal order 3. Whether the Bureau made reasonable efforts to prevent removal

The Appellate Court held that while substantial evidence supported jurisdiction based on mother's mental illness preventing regular care and creating substantial risk of harm to the infant, substantial evidence did not support removal because the Bureau failed to explore reasonable alternatives like family maintenance plans, evaluating maternal aunt as a support person, or providing in-home services, and the Bureau did not make reasonable efforts to prevent removal.

The case is inapplicable when there are multiple caregivers available to share parenting responsibilities, when the parent has stable ongoing mental health treatment with professional oversight, when extended family provides regular childcare assistance, or when the child is older and not solely dependent on the parent for basic needs.

The case leaves open what specific reasonable efforts would be sufficient to satisfy section 361(e), the precise standard for evaluating mental health risks to infants versus older children, and whether different results would apply with stronger evidence of current stability in mental health treatment.