In re Ma.V.
64 Cal.App.5th 11
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- SSA filed dependency petitions in Oct 2019 after two incidents in which Mother’s then‑boyfriend (B.L.) allegedly assaulted Mother; children were detained and placed with maternal grandmother.
- Allegations included (among others) domestic violence exposure, Mother’s PTSD/mental‑health treatment, medicinal marijuana use, and that Mother failed to address eldest child Ma.’s mental health needs.
- Over the next 10 months Mother disengaged from B.L., participated in VA mental‑health services, held a valid medical cannabis recommendation, and the social worker later testified marijuana use was not a current concern.
- SSA had difficulty obtaining verification from VA providers despite a signed release from Mother; SSA did not aggressively pursue additional contacts.
- At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing the juvenile court sustained some allegations (relying in large part on historical domestic violence), discredited Mother’s credibility, and removed the children.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the evidence at the time of the hearing was insufficient to support jurisdiction or removal and remanded for a continued jurisdictional hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SSA) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported dependency jurisdiction under § 300 (exposure to DV, substance use, neglect of Ma.) | Historical domestic violence, Mother’s marijuana use, and Ma.’s mental‑health problems justified jurisdiction. | Past domestic violence had abated; marijuana was medicinal and not a current risk; Ma. had not suffered recent breakdowns and Mother sought care. | Reversed: historical, stale conduct and verified medicinal marijuana use did not establish current substantial risk at time of hearing. |
| Whether removal (disposition) was supported by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable alternatives existed | Mother impeded verification of services and lacked insight; therefore no reasonable efforts could make return safe. | SSA failed to obtain VA records despite releases and did not exhaust alternative measures; children were stable with grandmother and desired more time with Mother. | Reversed: SSA did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that removal was necessary; reasonable alternatives (family caregiving, monitored reunification) existed. |
| Whether past domestic violence alone can justify continued dependency when relationship has ended and time has elapsed | Past DV shows ongoing risk and need for intervention. | Past DV alone is insufficient absent reason to believe it will recur; current conditions govern §300 analysis. | Court reaffirmed that stale past conduct, without evidence it may recur, cannot by itself sustain jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (past infliction of harm alone does not establish present substantial risk)
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (Cal. 2017) (standards for appellate review of jurisdictional findings)
- In re Jennifer V., 197 Cal.App.3d 1206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (jurisdictional proof is by preponderance of the evidence)
- In re Alexander K., 14 Cal.App.4th 549 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (scope of §300(c) for emotional harm and parental fault or inability to treat)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (heightened burden at dispositional removal stage)
- In re Basilio T., 4 Cal.App.4th 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (parental rights and higher dispositional standard)
- In re Henry V., 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (presumption favoring maintenance of family ties)
- In re Jasmine G., 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (parent–social worker conflict is not evidence to justify removal)
- In re I.B., 53 Cal.App.5th 133 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discussion of trend penalizing domestic violence victims)
- M.G. v. Superior Court of Orange County, 46 Cal.App.5th 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (similar concerns about dependency intervention after domestic violence)