47 Cal.App.5th 17
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Child (b. 2011) removed May 2017 after sexual abuse by maternal uncle; child placed in group home for special needs and mother failed to reunify.
- Maternal grandparents (M.P., S.P.) were heavily involved: regular team meetings, education rights at times, weekly two‑hour visits increasing to unsupervised overnight/weekend visits and multi‑day holiday stays; child expressed desire to live with them.
- Grandparents applied for Resource Family Approval; a DOJ background check disclosed grandfather’s 1991 misdemeanor conviction under Penal Code § 273d, which Health & Safety Code § 1522 treats as categorically nonexemptible for placement.
- Grandfather obtained Penal Code § 1203.4 dismissal and removal from CACI, but CFS denied an exemption and refused resource family approval; juvenile court denied grandparents’ request to compel reassessment.
- Grandparents appealed arguing the absolute statutory bar is unconstitutional as applied to them because they may share a parental (not merely grandparental) relationship with the child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal denial of reassessment | Grandparents directly aggrieved by denial and may appeal order after judgment | CFS: grandparents lack direct injury; no standing | Court: grandparents have standing; liberal construction favors appealability |
| Separation of powers | Statute improperly vests placement power in Legislature/agency, displacing juvenile court’s best‑interest role | CFS: legislature and executive may set statutory standards and discretion; judiciary reviews for abuse of discretion | Court: separation‑of‑powers claim fails; statute provides starting point and is reviewable by courts |
| Due process — is absolute statutory bar constitutional as applied? | Absolute bar (based solely on an old conviction) deprives grandparents of liberty interest in parental‑type relationship without individualized review | CFS: statute makes pre‑1994 PC § 273d convictions nonexemptible; dismissal under § 1203.4 not controlling; no entitlement to individualized exemption | Court: As‑applied due process requires individualized analysis if grandparents prove they have a parental (quasi‑parental) relationship; remand for factual finding and, if found, agency reassessment under individualized standard |
| Remedy / juvenile court authority | Grandparents sought reassessment and placement determination | CFS: juvenile court exceeded authority if it orders placement or substitutes judgment for agency | Court: juvenile court may remand/order CFS to reassess under proper legal standard but cannot itself grant exemption or order placement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.K., 217 Cal.App.4th 1422 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (recognizes parental‑type caregiver bonds can be constitutionally protected liberty interests)
- In re Esperanza C., 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (lists factors for criminal‑records exemption and discusses agency discretion)
- In re M.L., 205 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (agency denial of exemption reviewed for abuse of discretion; juvenile court cannot itself grant exemption)
- Los Angeles County Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Superior Court (Cheryl M.), 112 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (dismissal under § 1203.4 does not render conviction a nullity for placement purposes)
- In re C.F., 198 Cal.App.4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses CACI and process for removal of reports)
- Carmel Valley Fire Prot. Dist. v. State of California, 25 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2001) (separation‑of‑powers principles and role of the branches)