In 2022, the Mother of L.C., a three-year-old special needs child, was arrested for transporting six boxes of fentanyl containing over 50,000 pills in her car while her son was a passenger. Mother (identified only by this title in the court case) fled to Mexico but had to leave her child behind because he had been removed from her care by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department). L.C. filed an extraordinary writ, arguing there was “no substantial risk of detriment to his well-being” as the Department had alleged. A California appellate court has now agreed with the mother, and the parent and child might soon be reunited.

In a unanimous 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer of Division Seven of California’s Second District Court of Appeal on January 16, the court granted L.C.’s petition, writing, “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 (Desarrollo Integral de la Familia--Mexico’s child protection agency) can provide services to Mother and L.C. under the continued supervision of the Department. We now grant the petition.”

Although she was in Mexico, Mother had never lost contact with her son, who was in foster care with his maternal grandmother. They had weekly video calls, and Mother completed a drug treatment program that included parenting classes. She also submitted to random drug testing, all of which were negative. These efforts, however, were not enough for the Department, which doubted the validity of tests performed in Mexico and aired its concerns at a 12-month status review hearing in juvenile court. There, Los Angeles County judge Philip L. Soto found “a substantial risk of detriment if (the child) were returned to his Mother. Soto “focused on Mother’s failure to return to California” and speculation that L.C. would not receive proper “developmental services in Mexico.”

Feuer’s opinion provided a history of events that began with Mother’s arrest and continued to the present. The report contained many facts that demonstrated Mother was not a risk to L.C. For example, at the time of her arrest, the child was “clean, well-groomed, and dressed appropriately,” showing no signs of neglect. She explained that L.C.’s parents had divorced two years prior to her arrest, and the mother had agreed to transport the drugs because “it was an easy thing to do and (she) needed the money.” The criminal case against her was also dismissed. Meanwhile, L.C. was placed in the home of his maternal grandmother.

Nonetheless, the mother decided to return to Mexico where she was born and raised because her attorney had told her she could be deported since her “illegal status had been disclosed in the criminal case.” He advised her to take steps to legalize her status, so she returned to Mexico but planned to pursue legal status so she could be reunited with L.C. Unfortunately, the criminal case against her had been reopened, and she followed her attorney’s advice and remained in Mexico. While there, she continued to attend drug and alcohol prevention and parenting programs.

At the same time, L.C. was tested and found to have “borderline intellectual functioning” along with speech and language disorders. He was not autistic and had no severe intellectual disability. However, the Department concluded that the child, who was a U.S. citizen, would be better served if he could remain in the U.S., partly because English was his native language.

Feuer then discussed the governing laws. She explained that “the court ordinarily must order child welfare services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family,” unless “the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” The Justice found that “Substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding of detriment based on Mother’s purported failure to comply with her case plan’s drug testing requirement.” The two drug tests she took in the U.S. were negative and she underwent all required programs in Mexico, which also had programs that could support L.C.’s intellectual growth needs.

The Department, however, failed to contact the supervising department in Mexico for an evaluation of Mother’s progress and Mexico’s ability to provide L.C. with appropriate services. This led Feuer to conclude that “substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that L.C.’s developmental needs could not be met in Mexico.” In fact, two Mexican health-related agencies had told L.C.’s social worker that they could provide the necessary developmental services. She also concluded that the Mother’s failure to return to the U.S. and “to surrender to law enforcement do not support a finding of substantial risk of detriment.”

In conclusion, Feuer granted the writ and ordered the juvenile court to vacate its previous order. However, because the review hearing was more than a year ago, she did not order L.C.’s immediate return to Mother. She ordered a new hearing to determine whether any new facts could establish “a substantial risk of detriment to L.C.”

The ruling was perhaps best explained by Paul Simon in his song “Mother and Child Reunion” when he sang, “No, I would not give you false hope on his strange and mournful day. But the mother and child reunion is only a motion away.” Perhaps these words will ring true for L.C. and his mother before too long.