Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services
223 Cal. App. 4th 72
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mother spanked her 12-year-old daughter with a wooden spoon, yielding bruising; discipline was described as a rare, non-anger-driven practice.
- Social services investigated; the CANRA report was substantiated and listed with the DOJ for the CACI.
- Mother challenged the substantiation in administrative mandamus; the hearing officer found in favor of substantiation.
- The trial court denied the writ; Mother appealed, arguing CANRA should privilege reasonable parental discipline.
- The appellate court reversed, directing a new hearing or expungement of the CACI listing, and criticized exclusion of Daughter’s testimony.
- Court held CANRA incorporates the parental disciplinary privilege, needed to evaluate whether the discipline was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CANRA incorporate the parental disciplinary privilege? | Gonzalez: privilege allows reasonable discipline; CANRA should reflect this. | Department: CANRA definitions exclude parental discipline; no privilege in substantiation. | Yes; privilege incorporated; discipline can fall outside reportable abuse if reasonable. |
| Was the disciplinary act reasonable discipline under CANRA? | There was a genuine disciplinary motive and a reasonable occasion to discipline. | The spankings were not shown to be reasonable or necessary and caused bruising. | Remand for independent determination on reasonableness; bruising alone not conclusive. |
| Did the hearing officer improperly exclude Daughter's live testimony? | Exclusion denied Mother a fair opportunity to challenge the record and present percipient evidence. | Trauma concerns justified excluding the child’s testimony. | Yes; exclusion was an abuse of discretion; a live hearing was required absent good cause. |
| Was the record sufficient to support a finding of abuse or punishable discipline? | Discipline could be within the privilege; bruising not inherently proof of abuse given context. | Bruises and the social-worker narrative supported substantiation. | Record did not conclusively resolve reasonableness; remand for independent evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clark, 201 Cal.App.4th 235 (Cal.App.4th 2011) (parental privilege for reasonable discipline recognized in criminal context)
- Whitehurst, 9 Cal.App.4th 1045 (Cal.App.4th 1992) (disciplinary privilege limits criminal liability for reasonable discipline)
- Curtiss, 116 Cal.App.Supp. 771 (Cal.App.Supp. 1931) (in loco parentis and discipline privilege precede CANRA)
- People v. Stewart, 188 Cal.App.2d 88 (Cal.App.2d 1961) (disciplinary privilege recognized in early criminal context)
- In re Adam D., 183 Cal.App.4th 1250 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (object used for discipline not per se abuse; age-appropriate context)
- Saraswati v. County of San Diego, 202 Cal.App.4th 917 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (independent review standard in CANRA cases involving privacy rights)
- Roy v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.App.4th 1337 (Cal.App.4th 2011) (independent judgment after administrative review)