93 Cal.App.5th 836
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- M.D., an eight-year-old girl, lived with her father (Father) who had a prior dependency history; Father had been awarded sole custody after the mother’s prior abusive conduct.
- On October 5, 2022, police found M.D. roaming an apartment complex alone; the locked apartment had no electricity, an inoperable empty refrigerator, pervasive filth (trash, dog feces), and hazardous items; M.D. said she drank water when hungry and sometimes ate dog biscuits.
- Neighbors reported repeated episodes of M.D. being left unattended (including multi-day episodes); Father denied danger, relied on a dog for protection, and resisted offers of help; he claimed he homeschooled M.D. and went to casinos and work.
- The San Diego County HHSA filed a dependency petition under Welfare & Institutions Code §300(b) alleging failure to supervise/protect and failure to provide adequate food/shelter; the juvenile court found both counts true and removed M.D. from Father’s custody while offering reunification services.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the January 1, 2023 indigency exclusion in §300(b)(2)(C) bars jurisdiction where conditions are solely due to poverty, and (2) removal under §361(c) was improper because reasonable services (meal/childcare referrals) could have protected M.D.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(b)(2)(C)’s indigency exclusion precludes jurisdiction | Agency: Conditions were not solely due to indigency; evidence showed negligent conduct and failure to supervise/shelter | Father: New statute prohibits jurisdiction when risks stem solely from poverty/financial difficulty | Court: Rejection — indigency exclusion inapplicable because neglect and other parental failures, not poverty alone, supported jurisdiction |
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction for failure to supervise (§300(b)(1)(A)) | Agency: Child found alone, prior incidents, father unreachable, child wandering late at night, father denied risk | Father: Eight-year-olds sometimes briefly unsupervised; neighbors/dog provided protection; no physical injury shown | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supported risk of serious harm from inadequate supervision |
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction for failure to provide food/shelter (§300(b)(1)(C)) | Agency: Filthy, unsafe apartment; no electricity/inoperable fridge; child displayed food insecurity and ate dog biscuits | Father: Conditions caused by poverty; Agency should provide services rather than court intervention | Court: Affirmed — conditions and father’s neglect/choices (e.g., feeding dog, not preparing food, resisting help) supported negligent failure to provide, not mere indigency |
| Whether removal under §361(c)(1) was supported (no reasonable means to protect without removal) | Agency: Father denied problems, failed to engage in services, lacked insight; offers of help were refused — removal necessary to protect child | Father: Referrals for childcare and meal assistance were reasonable alternatives to removal | Court: Affirmed removal — clear and convincing evidence no reasonable means short of removal given father’s denial and lack of engagement/insight |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.B., 88 Cal.App.5th 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (indigency may be considered under §300(b) if not the sole factor supporting jurisdiction)
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007) (courts apply plain meaning in statutory construction)
- In re R.V., 208 Cal.App.4th 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (juvenile court may act to avert harm and need not wait for actual serious injury)
- In re Rebecca C., 228 Cal.App.4th 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (elements required for jurisdiction under §300(b)(1))
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (Cal. 2017) (parental negligent conduct suffices for jurisdiction based on failure to provide)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (Cal. 2020) (standard for reviewing clear-and-convincing findings on appeal)
- In re John M., 212 Cal.App.4th 1117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (parental insight/acknowledgment of past conduct bears on removal risk)
- In re Gabriel K., 203 Cal.App.4th 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (parental denial is relevant to likelihood of behavior change and reunification risk)