In re Madison S.
A144936
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- One-month-old Andrew suffered severe head, retinal, rib, and other injuries; medical experts concluded injuries were nonaccidental and caused by substantial force.
- Parents reported they were sole caretakers; mother initially identified father as perpetrator in a recorded “pretext” phone call in which father expressed remorse and offered to "demonstrate" what happened; father later invoked the Fifth at trial.
- Three medical experts testified at the contested hearing: Dr. Barnes and Dr. Hyman (defense-favoring alternative explanations: birth trauma, bone fragility, metabolic disorders) and Dr. Albin (child-abuse specialist who ruled out birth trauma and medical causes and concluded injuries were nonaccidental).
- Juvenile court credited Dr. Albin, found by clear and convincing evidence that father inflicted severe physical abuse under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(e), found mother knew or should have known, and denied father reunification services under § 361.5(b)(5) (mother granted services).
- Mother’s separate appeal challenging a spanking allegation (b-4) for daughter Madison was held not justiciable because other independent bases for jurisdiction remained; dependency findings and dispositional orders were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(e) that father inflicted severe physical abuse | Agency: medical evidence and father’s pretext-call statements support finding father caused abuse | Father: medical experts offered alternative causes; pretext call not an admission; perpetrator unascertainable | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports court’s finding father was perpetrator and injuries nonaccidental (court credited Dr. Albin and pretext call) |
| Whether reunification services to father should be denied under §361.5(b)(5)/(c)(3) | Agency: bypass appropriate because abuse was due to father’s conduct and services unlikely to prevent reabuse; social worker investigated and recommended bypass | Father: Agency changed recommendation improperly; social worker failed to investigate; Blanca P. “confession dilemma” prohibits conditioning services on admission | Affirmed: statutory bypass applies; no error in social worker’s recommendation; Blanca P. inapposite given full contested hearing and findings |
| Whether appellate review should revisit credibility and reweigh medical evidence | Father: conflicting expert testimony shows substantial evidence does not support result | Agency: credibility and factual weighing are for trial court; standard is substantial evidence | Affirmed: appellate court defers to juvenile court credibility determinations and upholds judgment under substantial-evidence standard |
| Whether mother’s spanking (b-4) allegation regarding Madison is reviewable | Mother: b-4 insufficient as independent basis for §300(b) jurisdiction | Agency: other jurisdictional grounds support dependency | Dismissed as nonjusticiable: appellate relief would be ineffective because other unchallenged bases (including §300(j) sibling risk) sustain jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Joshua H., 13 Cal.App.4th 1718 (1993) (parent need only have actual or constructive knowledge of abuse under §300(e))
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (2005) (appellate standard: resolve conflicts in evidence in favor of juvenile court; substantial evidence review)
- L.Z. v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.App.4th 1285 (2010) (§300(e) does not require identification of perpetrator; fairness concerns when perpetrator unknown)
- In re E.H., 108 Cal.App.4th 659 (2003) (circumstantial evidence may support §300(e) when perpetrator not identified)
- Blanca P. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1738 (1996) (warning against conditioning services on unproven admissions where important allegations require careful adjudication)
- In re A.M., 217 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2013) (statutory framework for reunification bypass under §361.5 and required findings that services are unlikely to prevent reabuse)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (2009) (when multiple grounds alleged, appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by substantial evidence; deference to trial credibility)