In re Alyssa G. CA2/7
B306721
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Alyssa, age 16, ran away after an incident in which her mother Carolina pushed her during an argument and reportedly hit herself in the car while saying she wanted to die; Alyssa reported ongoing physical and emotional abuse going back years.
- Maternal grandmother Suzanne and father Derek corroborated Alyssa’s reports; Suzanne described witnessing physical attacks and reported Carolina exhibits apparent psychotic/paranoid behavior.
- Carolina denied the abuse allegations (admitting only a single slap in a separate incident), denied mental illness, and provided a short mental‑health report the Department viewed as self‑reported and incomplete.
- DCFS filed a petition under Welfare & Institutions Code § 300 (a) and (b); the juvenile court detained Alyssa and placed her with her grandmother.
- At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing the court found Alyssa credible, sustained jurisdiction under § 300(b), concluded Carolina may lack insight into a mental‑health condition, and ordered Alyssa removed from Carolina’s custody as there were no reasonable means to protect her without removal; Carolina was ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and have monitored visits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Carolina) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports removal under Welf. & Inst. Code § 361(c)(1) (no reasonable means other than removal) | Evidence of ongoing physical and verbal abuse, corroboration, and Carolina’s denial/ lack of insight show high probability child would be at substantial danger and cannot be protected short of removal | Reasonable alternatives existed: juvenile‑court jurisdiction, supervised visitation, strict supervision or services in place; Alyssa mature enough to seek help | Affirmed. Court credited Alyssa, found Carolina’s denial and lack of acknowledgment made nonremoval unsafe, and substantial evidence supports removal. |
| Whether the juvenile court failed to state facts supporting its finding that DCFS made reasonable efforts to prevent removal (§ 361(e)) | DCFS offered emergency response, interviews, referrals, case plan and monitored visits; these were reasonable under circumstances | Court failed to state facts, so error requiring reversal or remand | Any omission was harmless. The record shows DCFS made reasonable efforts and it is not reasonably probable a different factual finding would have been made. |
| Whether the court failed to consider less drastic alternatives to removal | Court considered and rejected alternatives (supervision, orders, visits) as insufficient given Carolina’s denial and prior in‑car and in‑home incidents | Court did not meaningfully consider or adopt less drastic alternatives | Affirmed. Court considered alternatives and reasonably rejected them as inadequate to protect Alyssa. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ashly F., 225 Cal.App.4th 803 (2014) (statutory framework: removal only if clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger and no reasonable means short of removal)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) (standard of review for findings requiring clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Cole C., 174 Cal.App.4th 900 (2009) (parental denial of wrongdoing can support conclusion no reasonable means short of removal)
- In re V.L., 54 Cal.App.5th 147 (2020) (denial of domestic violence supports removal when it undercuts likelihood of change)
- In re Diamond H., 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 (2000) (discusses alternative measures and harmlessness of omitted factual findings)
- In re D.P., 44 Cal.App.5th 1058 (2020) (harmless‑error review when court fails to state facts under § 361(e))