209 Cal. App. 4th 237
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- A.A. is mother of D.D., Jr. and D.A.; D.D., Jr. was placed with A.A. after a prior reunification period.
- D.A. was born months after the July 2011 hearing; A.A. faced medical and childcare barriers to reunification.
- A.A. moved to Arizona with D.D., Jr. after alleged violations of a restraining order and failed to maintain monthly contact with the social worker.
- Agency detained D.D., Jr. and filed a section 387 petition; D.A. remained involved under a section 300 petition.
- Disposition orders denied reunification services for both children; 366.26 hearings were set for both, with stay on D.A. pending writ.
- Petition for writ review challenged only the denial of reunification services for D.A. and invoked section 361.5,(b)(15) bypass provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 361.5(b)(15) bypass apply to A.A.’s Arizona move with D.D., Jr.? | A.A. abducted from placement; bypass applies. | No clear abduction; motion to bypass not supported by evidence. | Bypass provision not applicable; error to deny reunification services. |
| Is there substantial evidence that A.A. abducted from placement or refused to disclose location? | Conduct amounting to abduction or non-disclosure occurred. | No actual abduction or disclosure refusal; movement was to Arizona. | Record lacks evidence of abduction or refusal to disclose location; bypass not supported. |
| Did the court properly apply the statutory meaning of placement and abduction? | Placement includes placement order and relocation can constitute abduction. | Statute not ambiguous; focus on removal to avoid rule violations; placement/abduction not proven. | Placement includes the court-ordered arrangement; no abduction found under the statute. |
| Should reunification services have been denied to D.A. under bypass rules? | Bypass triggered by A.A.’s conduct. | Bypass not supported by the record; services warranted for D.A. | Bypass not supported; order void; require reunification services for D.A. |
| What is the appropriate remedy on review? | Grant writ; vacate 366.26 hearing order and reinstate services. | Maintain status; only address whether bypass applied. | Writ granted; vacate 366.26 order; reinstate reasonable reunification services for D.A. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Austin P., 118 Cal.App.4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (statutory interpretation governs unless ambiguity; plain meaning controls)
- In re David, 202 Cal.App.4th 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation and bypass provisions analyzed)
- In re B.L., 204 Cal.App.4th 1111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (substantial evidence standard for bypass findings)
- In re Jesse W., 157 Cal.App.4th 49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (reunification services required absent bypass provisions)
- In re B.D., 159 Cal.App.4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (interpretation of bypass findings; substantial evidence standard)
- In re Baby Boy L., 24 Cal.App.4th 596 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (review of evidence to support court’s findings in dependency cases)
- In re Lana S., 207 Cal.App.4th 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation and scope of welfare code provisions)
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2001) (statutory interpretation and standards for appellate review)