205 Cal. App. 4th 210
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- M.L. (born 2008) was placed with her paternal grandparents on an emergency basis after removal from her parents due to drug use and criminal histories.
- The grandmother had no criminal history; the grandfather’s live-scan disclosed multiple convictions, triggering a requirement for a criminal records exemption under Welfare and Institutions Code § 361.4.
- The Agency sought to remove M.L. from the grandparents and filed a section 387 petition; the exemption request for grandfather was denied by the Agency.
- The juvenile court initially noted the exemption issue and allowed the grandparents’ placement, and later dismissed the section 387 petition, ordering M.L. back to the grandparents with reunification services.
- The Agency argued the placement was unauthorized because grandfather’s unexempted criminal history barred placement, and that the court exceeded its authority by effectively granting an exemption.
- The appellate court reverses, holding the court exceeded its powers by placing M.L. with the grandparents and that the Agency’s exemption denial remains a strictly executive decision requiring proper administrative review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could place M.L. with the grandparents despite unexempted criminal history | Agency: unexempted history bars placement | Grandparents: court may place for best interests | Placement unauthorized; court erred |
| Whether the court could grant a criminal records exemption or effectively do so | Agency: exemption denial was proper; court cannot grant exemption | Court: exemption process flawed but could not grant exemption | Court exceeded its powers by effectively granting exemption |
| Whether the exemption denial was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion | Agency denial should be reviewed as abuse of discretion | Esperanza C. allows review but not substitution of judgment | Agency did not abuse discretion; court erred in substituting its own judgment |
| Whether a section 387 petition was necessary to move M.L. from the grandparents’ home | Agency: petition appropriate; Cynthia C. supports move without formal placement | Grandparents/children’s counsel: petition unnecessary | Petition either unnecessary or not fatal; reversal of placement warranted; petition amended on remand |
| Whether reunification services/transportation must be provided given reversal | Agency entitled to services for transition | No services because placement reversed | Reunification/transportation order reversed as a consequence of remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.W., 131 Cal.App.4th 838 (Cal. App. 4th 2005) (agency review of exemption is for abuse of discretion)
- Valerie A., 87 Cal.App.4th 1161 (Cal. App. 2001) (exemption decision reserved to Agency, not court)
- Sencere P., 126 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. App. 2004) (exemption process; administrative review available)
- Cheryl M., 112 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. App. 2003) (placement with long-term relative—361.4 applicability)
- Esperanza C., 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. App. 2008) (juvenile court may review exemption denial for abuse of discretion)