In re E.E.
49 Cal.App.5th 195
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- Mother tested positive for amphetamine during a prenatal visit; newborn E. tested positive for amphetamine and marijuana at birth. Parents also have three older children (ages 2, 6, 10).
- CFS investigated; parents were evasive, temporarily placed the children with a family friend, missed/avoided multiple drug tests, and resisted engaging in services.
- CFS filed section 300(b) petitions (failure to protect). Juvenile court detained the children, sustained jurisdiction as to all children, and ordered removal and reunification services with supervised visitation.
- Mother appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence for jurisdiction over the older siblings and for removal (especially that the children could not safely remain with father alone); she did not challenge jurisdiction over E.
- CFS urged dismissal under the appellate disentitlement doctrine; the court rejected that argument and proceeded to the merits.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court: jurisdiction over the siblings and removal orders were supported; disentitlement doctrine did not apply; the statutory presumption in section 361(c)(1) is limited to §300(e) cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over E.’s siblings under §300(b) | Mother: past/remote drug use is insufficient; no current substantial risk to siblings | CFS: prenatal/birth positives plus evasive conduct, missed tests, dishonesty, and exposure to substance-using environments create substantial risk | Substantial evidence supported jurisdiction over siblings based on mother’s drug use and conduct (court may infer ongoing risk) |
| Appellate disentitlement doctrine | CFS: mother’s pre-hearing noncooperation and evasive tactics justify dismissing her appeal | Mother: her noncooperation occurred pre-jurisdiction; she violated no court orders; disentitlement is an extreme sanction | Disentitlement inapplicable; reserved for parents who violate court orders or thwart the court’s ability to protect children |
| Removal from mother (§361) | Mother: older children were doing well; she could care for them and offered to relocate | CFS: mother moved away, provided no suitable home details, made little progress in services, and had unresolved substance concerns | Removal from mother supported (no safe basis to return children; clear and convincing evidence) |
| Removal from father (§361) | Mother: father could safely care for children; positive test explained/clarified | CFS: father minimized mother’s drug use, missed tests, engaged inconsistently in services, lived with relative with significant criminal history | Removal from father supported; court reasonably inferred he would not protect children and home environment was unsafe |
| Scope of §361(c)(1) prima facie presumption | CFS: jurisdictional findings generally constitute prima facie evidence that children cannot safely remain in home | Mother: the presumption is limited and does not apply here | Presumption in §361(c)(1) applies only to adjudications under §300(e) (severe physical abuse of a child under five); otherwise removal requires clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (discusses standard of review and dependency factfinding)
- In re L.W., 32 Cal.App.5th 840 (substance use alone insufficient; need nexus and context)
- In re Christopher R., 225 Cal.App.4th 1210 (affirmed jurisdiction where infant tested positive and parent’s denial/evasive conduct supported risk to siblings)
- MacPherson v. MacPherson, 13 Cal.2d 271 (illustrates extreme use of disentitlement where party absconded with children)
- In re Baby Boy M., 141 Cal.App.4th 588 (prejurisdiction obstruction does not automatically justify appellate disentitlement)
- In re K.S., 244 Cal.App.4th 327 (rejects broad application of §361(c)(1) presumption beyond §300(e) cases)
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (reunification services are voluntary; consequences for noncooperation are statutory)
- In re Hailey T., 212 Cal.App.4th 139 (contrasting facts where removal was reversed for one child despite jurisdiction for sibling)