Esteban G. v. Superior Court
221 Cal. App. 4th 732
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Dependency petition alleged physical abuse and parental drug use; children placed with maternal aunt while mother received reunification services. Father initially not located and was denied reunification services because the Department reported his whereabouts as unknown.
- Department repeatedly attempted service at a non-existent address "Idaho, California;" father later learned of the case from relatives, contacted the Department, and sought custody.
- Multiple mandated-reporter child-abuse referrals (five) described significant bruising to Suhey and statements that she was afraid to go home; the Department repeatedly characterized referrals as unfounded or inconclusive and failed to timely and fully inform the court or child’s counsel.
- The juvenile court ordered an ICPC evaluation of father and set a Welfare & Institutions Code § 366.26 (permanency/termination) hearing; Department later recommended adoption despite a favorable ICPC report for father.
- After further investigation, maternal aunt was found to have abused Suhey, the Department filed a § 387 petition, and the court ultimately placed Suhey with father under supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ICPC may be ordered for out-of-state placement with a parent | Father: ICPC does not apply to placements with a parent, so ordering an ICPC evaluation was improper | Department: ICPC compliance not required but an ICPC evaluation can be used to gather information | Court: ICPC evaluation was discretionary and permissible as an information-gathering tool; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether setting a § 366.26 hearing was proper without a § 361.2 analysis for placement with a noncustodial parent | Father: Court erred by setting § 366.26 without requiring Dept to prove placement with father would be detrimental under § 361.2, given father lacked timely notice | Department: After dispositional stage, burden shifted to father to seek relief (e.g., § 388); § 361.2 not required at six‑month review | Court: Dept’s failures to locate/notify father deprived court of jurisdiction under § 361.2; court should have conducted § 361.2 analysis and not set § 366.26; remand ordered (though father later obtained placement at § 387) |
| Whether the Department adequately investigated and disclosed abuse reports and facilitated reunification | Father: Dept failed to investigate/notify court and failed to provide services to assist visitation/reunification | Department: Initially defended its conduct; later conceded deficiencies in locating father and recommended remand limited to father’s disposition | Court: Dept repeatedly failed to investigate, misinformed the court, withheld material facts, and did not facilitate reunification; criticized Dept’s practices and directed proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re John M., 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 (Cal. Ct. App.) (ICPC may be used to gather information even if not required for placement with a parent)
- In re Johnny S., 40 Cal.App.4th 969 (Cal. Ct. App.) (ICPC provisions are not mandatory for placement with a natural parent in another state)
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993) (§ 361.2 procedures apply when child is first removed; limits on timing of § 361.2 applicability)
- In re K.D., 124 Cal.App.4th 1013 (Cal. Ct. App.) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing orders requiring ICPC evaluations)
- In re Arlyne A., 85 Cal.App.4th 591 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to locate/notify a parent can mean the juvenile court lacked personal jurisdiction over that parent)