In re Erik C. CA2/4
B269646
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- In October 2015 deputies searched the mother’s home during a probation check on her adult son Victor and found a loaded .40-caliber pistol, gang paraphernalia, and methamphetamine paraphernalia in Victor’s bedroom; Victor was arrested and mother was arrested for obstructing an officer. DCFS detained the two younger children, Erik (born 2001) and S.C. (born 2006).
- Victor is a known gang member with prior arrests for drug use, possession of a loaded firearm, and related offenses; DCFS had previously filed a dependency petition in 2014 after gang/drug activity at the home and mother agreed then to exclude Victor.
- Mother admitted she allowed Victor back into the home in 2015 because she believed he was doing better; she and other family members later reported Victor had left after his arrest and mother changed the locks and cleared his room.
- DCFS filed a section 300(b) petition alleging mother placed the children at substantial risk by allowing Victor to reside in the home despite his history of substance abuse and criminal/gang activity.
- At the January 2016 adjudication/disposition hearing the juvenile court sustained the petition as to mother, declared the children dependents, returned them to mother with conditions (including no contact by Victor), and ordered family maintenance/formal supervision and services.
- Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of present substantial risk (Victor had been excluded by the hearing) and that the court should have ordered informal supervision under §360(b) rather than formal dependency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) | Mother’s prior conduct of allowing Victor to live in the home despite his history, the recent discovery of a loaded gun and methamphetamine paraphernalia accessible to the children, and Victor’s unstable housing support a current substantial risk to the children | By the hearing mother had excluded Victor, changed locks, cleared his room, and the children had no contact with him, so no present risk existed | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supported jurisdiction because mother’s recurring conduct and Victor’s instability made recurrence reasonably likely |
| Whether the juvenile court should have dismissed mother’s appeal as moot because father’s unchallenged findings left dependency in place | DCFS argued appellate review need not proceed | Mother sought review because the jurisdictional finding supports dispositional orders and may affect her status as offending vs. non-offending parent | Court exercised discretion to hear appeal because the jurisdictional finding formed the basis of dispositional orders and could affect mother’s future rights |
| Whether informal supervision under §360(b) should have been used instead of formal dependency | Formal supervision needed so DCFS could monitor compliance and ensure Victor remained excluded | Mother argued she had remedied the problem and informal supervision would suffice | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion in ordering formal supervision to permit monitoring and enforcement |
| Standard of review for jurisdictional finding | DCFS relied on the standard that appellate courts review for substantial evidence | Mother implicitly urged reweighing of evidence and reliance on changed circumstances | Court applied substantial-evidence review and resolved all reasonable inferences in favor of the juvenile court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (discretion to reach otherwise moot appeals where jurisdictional finding affects dispositional orders and parental status)
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (standard of review for dependency jurisdictional findings)
- In re Savannah M., 131 Cal.App.4th 1387 (risk of serious physical harm must exist at time of adjudication; past conduct probative if likely to continue)
- In re N.M., 197 Cal.App.4th 159 (court’s discretion whether to use informal supervision under §360(b))
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (elements plaintiff must prove for §300(b) jurisdiction)