68 Cal.App.5th 563
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Petitioner S.H.R., born Dec. 2001 in El Salvador, arrived in the U.S. in Aug. 2018 and lived with cousin’s husband Jesus Rivas in Palmdale.
- In Sept. 2019 S.H.R. sought appointment of Rivas as guardian (Prob. Code §1510.1) and in Dec. 2019 petitioned under Code Civ. Proc. §155 for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings (reunification not viable due to neglect/abandonment; return not in best interest).
- Supporting declaration: childhood farm work (ages ~10–15), gang threats that led parents to pull him out of school and make him work, family financial hardship; he fled to the U.S. in June 2018 because of gang threats.
- Probate court denied the SIJ petition, finding the evidence did not establish abandonment or neglect under California law and did not show reunification with a parent was presently not viable; guardianship petition was denied as moot.
- Appellant appealed the denial of SIJ findings; this appeal addresses appealability, burden/standard of proof, sufficiency of parental neglect/abandonment evidence, and mootness of the guardianship claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of order denying SIJ findings | The order denying SIJ findings is appealable | (Respondents made no appearance) | The denial is equivalent to a final judgment and is appealable under Griset test |
| Proper burden/standard for §155 SIJ findings | Court should issue findings if there is evidence that could support them ("substantial evidence" standard) | Petitioner bears burden to prove facts by preponderance; trial court must actually find facts | Petitioner bears burden by preponderance; substantial-evidence-to-support is insufficient — court must find facts as required by §155 |
| Whether parents abandoned or neglected S.H.R. | Parents neglected/abandoned him by making him work from a young age, removing him from school, and failing to support him | Parents did not desert him; work and school removal were responses to poverty and gang threats, not legal neglect as a matter of law | Evidence did not compel a finding of abandonment or neglect as a matter of law; court’s contrary factual conclusion stands |
| Whether reunification with parent is not viable due to maltreatment | Reunification is not viable because of parental neglect/abandonment and ongoing family conditions | Evidence shows no present impossibility or unworkability of reunification caused by parents’ conduct; petitioner fled due to gang threats, not parental inability | Petitioner failed to prove reunification is presently not viable because of parental maltreatment; SIJ findings properly denied |
| Guardianship under Prob. Code §1510.1 after SIJ denial | Guardianship should proceed independently; statute allows guardianship for 18–21 | §1510.1 authorizes guardianship appointment only in connection with a §155 SIJ petition | Guardianship petition was properly dismissed as moot after denial of SIJ petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Bianka M. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.5th 1004 (Cal. 2018) (interpreting §155 and limits on considering petitioner motive)
- In re Y.M., 207 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (describing SIJ purpose and statutory framework)
- Eddie E. v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (discussing SIJ statutory requirements)
- J.U. v. J.C.P.C., 176 A.3d 136 (D.C. 2018) (construing ‘viable’ reunification as practical/workable)
- Leslie H. v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.4th 340 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (analyzing nonviability causation requirement)
- Osorio‑Martinez v. Attorney General, 893 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2018) (federal requirement that state court must find required SIJ facts)
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (final judgment/appealability test)
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (Cal. 2017) (defining neglect in dependency context)