In Re Jasmine G.

Michael D. Randall, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Minor.

"Because we so abhor the involuntary separation of parent and child," wrote Justice Baxter for the court in In re Kieshia E. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 68, 76 , 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 775 , 859 P.2d 1290 , "the state may disturb an existing parent-child relationship only for strong reasons and subject to careful procedures." Not surprisingly then, California law requires that there be no lesser alternative before a child may be removed from the home of his or her parent. [1]

In this case, a social worker opined that a teenager should not be returned to her mother because both her parents apparently lacked a "full understanding" of their 15-year-old daughter's adolescent "issues." Excuse us—but what parent doesn't that describe? A social worker's opinion that parents have not sufficiently internalized proper parenting skills is not substantial evidence to justify even a detriment finding (see Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1751 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 687 [failure to internalize general parenting skills was insufficient evidence to support detriment finding at 18-month review]),…