53 Cal.App.5th 856
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Lucas (age 4) was removed after mother Georgeanne violated a no-contact order and continued living with Arthur, a man previously convicted of felony spousal rape; mother also had ongoing marijuana use and a history of domestic incidents in the family.
- Juvenile court initially placed Lucas with paternal grandparents, ordered reunification services (substance abuse treatment, parenting, domestic-violence counseling), and later sustained a section 387 petition removing Lucas after continued marijuana use and Arthur residing in the home.
- Over the reunification period Georgeanne completed court-ordered programs, tested clean for marijuana by the 18-month review, and maintained strong, appropriate monitored visits with Lucas, but expressed a desire to resume cohabitation with Arthur and lift no-contact restrictions.
- The Department of Children and Family Services recommended termination of reunification services, citing Georgeanne’s lack of insight into the dangers posed by her relationship with Arthur and a likelihood she would violate court orders, creating risk to Lucas.
- The juvenile court terminated reunification services at the 18-month permanency review (section 366.22), finding Georgeanne had not gained “meaningful insight,” and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider adoption.
- The Court of Appeal granted Georgeanne’s writ: it held lack of parental insight is a permissible consideration but concluded the Department failed to present substantial evidence that returning Lucas would create a substantial risk of detriment; the matter was remanded for a new permanency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent’s lack of insight into the conduct that led to dependency may support terminating reunification services and ordering a section 366.26 hearing | Georgeanne: Lack of "insight" alone is too vague and cannot justify termination; compliance with programs should control | Department: Lack of insight is relevant to future risk (e.g., likelihood to flout no-contact orders; enable dangerous persons) | Court: Lack of insight may be considered, but it must be supported by concrete evidence tying it to substantial risk of harm |
| Whether substantial evidence supported finding that returning Lucas to Georgeanne would create a substantial risk of detriment (due to likely contact with Arthur and potential for violence) | Georgeanne: No evidence Arthur posed an immediate risk to her or Lucas; she completed services and would comply with orders | Department: Georgeanne remained co‑dependent on Arthur and likely to permit his access, creating risk | Court: Evidence was speculative; key inferences (mother would violate order; Arthur would be violent toward them) lacked support — insufficient to show substantial risk |
| Whether the juvenile court correctly terminated services despite mother’s program completion and clean tests | Georgeanne: Completed services and resolved substance issue justify returning Lucas with supervision | Department: Program completion is not dispositive when risk remains from relationship patterns | Court: Program completion is relevant; without substantial evidence of specific danger, the child should be returned under supervision rather than services terminated |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanca P. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1738 (1996) (criticized reliance on vague, uncorroborated claims of parents’ failure to "internalize" parenting skills as basis for detriment finding)
- Jasmine G. v. Superior Court, 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (2000) (warned social-worker opinion about parents’ subjective lack of understanding cannot alone justify removal when evidence shows safety)
- M.G. v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.App.5th 646 (2020) (insufficient speculative concerns about a parent’s relationships and insight do not satisfy the substantial-evidence standard for detriment)
- Constance K. v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 689 (1998) (permitted consideration of properly supported psychological evaluations showing return would be detrimental even if reunification plan completed)
- In re Dustin R., 54 Cal.App.4th 1131 (1997) (compliance with a reunification plan is relevant but not dispositive; court must assess whether objectives were truly met)
- In re Shaputis, 53 Cal.4th 192 (2011) (a parent’s current attitude toward past conduct can be a predictor of future behavior and is admissible evidence)