46 Cal.App.5th 932
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Three children (ages 7, 4, 2) were removed after discovery of a hypodermic needle and parents' recent drug relapses; SSA filed a dependency petition.
- Both parents have lengthy histories of substance abuse with prior dependency cases, completed treatment, reunified, then later relapsed.
- After the 2018 relapses parents entered treatment, used a safety plan (placing children with caretakers), and both engaged in recommended services and testing during the proceedings; some drug-positive tests occurred.
- SSA sought to bypass reunification services under Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5(b)(13) (requires extensive history plus that the parent "resisted prior court-ordered treatment" within 3 years).
- The juvenile court found parents had not "resisted" court-ordered treatment and ordered reunification services; SSA and minors appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that "resisted" in (b)(13) requires active refusal or failure to meaningfully participate, not mere passive relapse; therefore the bypass did not apply.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "resisted" in Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5(b)(13) includes passive resistance (relapse) | SSA: repeated relapses show passive resistance; one instance suffices to bypass services | Parents: "resisted" means active refusal or failure to meaningfully engage; relapse alone is not resistance | Court: "resisted" means active resistance; passive relapse alone does not satisfy (b)(13); reunification services allowed |
| Whether prior appellate cases treating relapse as "resistance" bind the statute's meaning or are ratified by legislative inaction | SSA/minors: Randi R. line supports passive-resistance reading; subsequent amendments imply acquiescence | Parents: those cases misread the statute; legislative inaction is a weak inference and amendment limited to court-ordered treatment requirement | Court: rejects passive-resistance line; textual/contextual analysis controls; legislative inaction is insufficient to override statutory reading |
Key Cases Cited
- Randi R. v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.App.4th 67 (1998) (early appellate decision equating relapse with resistance)
- Laura B. v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.App.4th 776 (1998) (accepted relapse-as-resistance but noted immediate return to treatment may negate resistance)
- Karen S. v. Superior Court, 69 Cal.App.4th 1006 (1999) (endorsed active/passive resistance distinction; defined passive resistance as failing to benefit from treatment)
- In re Levi U., 78 Cal.App.4th 191 (2000) (construed resistance to include failure to volunteer for treatment under earlier statute)
- In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (2008) (applied passive-resistance line to affirm bypass after relapse)
- John v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 91 (2016) (statutory construction principle: start with statutory text)