In re X.D.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a juvenile court’s exercise of dependency jurisdiction over a child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g), based on the father’s incarceration and inability to arrange suitable, reliable, or appropriate care. The court held that the father’s inability could be inferred from his proposal of relatives who were unable or unwilling to provide care, together with his longstanding lack of involvement in the child’s life.

Holdings

1. An incarcerated parent's inability to arrange care may be inferred when the relatives proposed by the parent are not willing or able to provide suitable, reliable, or appropriate care during the parent's incarceration.
2. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that father was unable to arrange suitable, reliable, or appropriate care for X.D. during his incarceration.
3. The Department was not required to reform an unsuitable relative before the juvenile court could exercise jurisdiction, and the parent was not entitled to multiple opportunities to propose additional caregivers when no suitable caregiver was available.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g), permits dependency jurisdiction when an incarcerated parent proposes relatives who are unwilling or unable to provide suitable, reliable, or appropriate care for the child.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that father was unable to arrange suitable care for X.D. during his incarceration.
3. Whether the juvenile court could infer father's inability to arrange care from his failure to identify a suitable caregiver and his longstanding lack of involvement in X.D.'s life.

Disposition

affirmed