Daniel J. v. Superior Court CA5
F082479
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 11, 2021Background
- Newborn Daniel was detained in December 2019 after both parents tested positive for methamphetamine; father appeared impaired and the home was cluttered/unsafe.
- County filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(b); child was placed in foster care; mother’s reunification services were terminated at six months.
- Father initially engaged in services (parenting class, drug testing, visits) but stopped individual counseling in Nov. 2020 and failed to remedy severe clutter, animal feces, and sanitary hazards in his home.
- Agency photos and social worker reports documented continuing unsafe conditions; father identified an alternative room to rent but had no lease or formal agreement and continued contact with mother.
- At the contested 12‑month review the juvenile court found return would be detrimental and that there was not a substantial probability of reunification by the 18‑month date; it terminated reunification services and set a § 366.26 hearing. Petition for extraordinary writ was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether return to father would be detrimental | Father: he secured alternate housing and addressed clutter, so return is safe | Agency/Court: home remained hazardous; no binding proof father would move or maintain safety | Court: affirmed detriment finding — return would pose substantial risk |
| Whether substantial probability child could be returned within 18 months (continuation of services) | Father: he regularly visited, made progress, and could finish services if continued | Agency/Court: father did not make significant progress on hoarding, counseling, or removal of safety hazards | Court: no substantial probability of return; services properly terminated |
| Whether COVID‑19 justified continuance/good cause to continue services | Father: pandemic impeded completion of parent‑child labs, hiring cleaning help, and continuing counseling | Agency/Court: father provided no evidence COVID prevented efforts; missed counseling largely due to stolen phone; no demonstrated attempts to hire help | Court: COVID did not excuse failure to make required progress; no error in denying continuance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (summarizes presumption in favor of reunification and burden to prove detriment)
- In re Brison C., 81 Cal.App.4th 1373 (standard of substantial‑evidence review of juvenile court findings)
- Kevin R. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.4th 676 (discusses review deference and drawing inferences to support juvenile court determinations)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (dirty‑house precedent distinguishing clutter cases where problems were resolved vs. cases involving underlying disorders)