Opinion ID: 1412109
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the section 4600 finding of detriment

Text: Since the mental illness ground is unsupported by the evidence, and therefore cannot be used to sever the parental relationship to all of the children, and since the neglect ground is supported only as to four of the five children, we conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court for a determination of the finding of detriment and a redetermination of whether the section 232 petition should be granted. Section 4600 [10] requires: Before the court makes any order awarding custody to a person or persons other than a parent, without the consent of the parents, it shall make a finding that an award of custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child, and the award to a nonparent is required to serve the best interests of the child.... (8) Our decision in In re B.G., held section 4600 applied to all cases where custody of children was in issue, and it requires a finding by the court that placement away from the parent ... is essential to avert harm to the child.... (Italics added.) (11 Cal.3d 679, at p. 699.) This finding of detriment has been required in section 232 cases. ( In re B.G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679; In re D.L.C. (1976) supra, 54 Cal. App.3d 840; In re T.M.R. (1974) 41 Cal. App.3d 694 [116 Cal. Rptr. 292]; In re Susan M., supra (1975) 53 Cal. App.3d 300.) In the instant case, the trial court, without such express finding, declared the children free of their parents' custody and control, basing its decision on three subdivisions of section 232, of which only subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(6) are in issue. (9) In a case such as this where fundamental rights are affected by the exercise of discretion by the trial court, we recognize that such discretion can only be truly exercised if there is no misconception by the trial court as to the legal basis for its action. Thus, where, as here, some of the grounds for the trial court's action have been determined on appeal to be supportable and other grounds unsupported, the matter should be remanded for the trial court's redetermination of the ultimate issue on the proper grounds. ( Bonham v. McConnell (1955) 45 Cal.2d 304, 306 [288 P.2d 502]; Byrd v. Savage (1963) 219 Cal. App.2d 396, 402 [32 Cal. Rptr. 881]; Andrews v. Cunningham (1955) 105 Cal. App.2d 525, 529 [233 P.2d 563].) Had the court concluded that Mrs. B. was not mentally ill and that the judgment would separate the siblings, it may well have come to a different result on the question of whether the order would constitute the least detrimental alternative for the children. We cannot say that the erroneous findings were surplusage (see Brewer v. Simpson, 53 Cal.2d 567 [2 Cal. Rptr. 609, 349 P.2d 289]) or that there is no real doubt in the absence of the erroneous findings. (See Byrd v. Savage, supra . ) Accordingly, we reverse the judgment as to Mrs. B. and remand for new trial.