In re L.Y. CA2/2
B269221
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Minor (born 2009) was detained after mother was arrested following a home altercation and reports that the child lived with Ronald D., a registered sex offender, and in unstable, possibly drug-using environments.
- DCFS petitioned under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) and (d) alleging mother allowed the child to reside with Ronald (a registrant under Penal Code §290 and convicted of a Maryland sex offense) and engaged in erratic/violent conduct exposing the child to unsafe environments.
- Mother repeatedly refused many DCFS requests for cooperation, denied wrongdoing, defended Ronald as the child’s father, and continued visits that included confrontational behavior; Ronald had prior convictions (including Penal Code §647.6) and a loitering citation near children.
- The juvenile court sustained counts b-2 (child resided with a registered sex offender), d-1 (risk of sexual abuse), and b-3 (mother’s erratic behavior/unsafe environments) and dismissed the pepper-spray allegation; child was removed from mother’s custody at disposition.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly relied on the §355.1 presumption from Ronald’s registrant status and (2) count b-3 was vague/unsupported; she also challenged removal as lacking clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §355.1 presumption (registrant status) can support jurisdiction under §300(b)/(d) | DCFS: Ronald’s registrant status triggers §355.1 prima facie evidence child is at substantial risk; additional evidence (conviction for PC §647.6, loitering near children, child slept with him) supports risk | Mother: Ronald’s offense was old and minor (kissing a 14‑year‑old when 18); no evidence child was ever sexually abused; court improperly relied on presumption rather than weighing evidence | Court: §355.1 presumption applied; mother failed to rebut it with admissible evidence; substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b),(d) |
| Sufficiency and vagueness of amended count b‑3 (erratic/unstable behavior) | DCFS: prior referrals, violent incidents, residence instability, and confrontations with property managers, social workers and foster mother show pattern endangering child | Mother: Allegation is vague (no dates/actors), possibly stale, and lacks specificity to meet due process | Court: Because jurisdiction is supportable on b‑2/d‑1, b‑3 need not be dispositive; nevertheless court found reports gave mother adequate notice and substantial evidence supports b‑3 |
| Removal decision: whether clear and convincing evidence required for removal was met | DCFS: Mother’s continued relationship with Ronald, refusal to accept services, unstable housing, history of uncooperativeness and confrontations create current substantial risk warranting removal | Mother: Child had not been seriously harmed; less drastic dispositional options should have been considered; evidence insufficient to meet clear and convincing standard | Court: Substantial evidence supports removal by clear and convincing standard—mother’s stance that Ronald posed no risk, refusal of services, instability and prior history justified removal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Quentin H., 230 Cal.App.4th 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (discusses limits on relying solely on §355.1 presumption; court must consider rebuttal evidence)
- In re John S., 88 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (§355.1 presumption may apply despite conviction many years earlier)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (court need not wait for serious abuse before assuming jurisdiction to protect child)
- In re Nicholas B., 88 Cal.App.4th 1126 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for removal requires clear and convincing evidence of current substantial risk)
- In re Luke M., 107 Cal.App.4th 1412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (appellate review of juvenile findings uses substantial evidence standard)