In re Mya B. CA1/4, A161208

Background

April 30, 2020: 12-year-old Mya disclosed to an unidentified reporter and then to father and police that mother had hit her with a belt, hanger, and pencil; police observed a bruise and issued a five-day protective order.
Agency interview and safety plan: mother denied using objects, acknowledged limited spanking when Mya was younger, enrolled in a parenting program, and agreed to a no-physical-discipline safety plan; Agency did not seek removal.
Additional bruises appeared in May while Mya stayed with both parents; Mya sometimes could not explain bruises.
Early June: Mya was diagnosed with leukemia; medical opinion provided a nonabuse explanation for bruising.
Agency withdrew the dependency petition after further investigation and medical consultation; father objected and a contested hearing was held on October 19, 2020; juvenile court dismissed the petition and preserved family law custody orders.
Father appealed, arguing the juvenile court failed to make the explicit statutory findings required by Welfare & Institutions Code § 390 before dismissal; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 390 findings were required before dismissal	Father: court erred by not making explicit § 390 findings; remand required	Agency/Court: dismissal was based on insufficiency of evidence under § 350(c); § 390 was not invoked and not required	Court: § 390 findings were not required; dismissal valid under § 350(c); any required § 390 findings could be implied and are supported by evidence
Whether substantial evidence supported dismissal (no jurisdiction under § 300(a))	Father: Mya’s initial statements and bruises show nonaccidental physical harm by mother	Agency/Court: Mya later recanted, medical explanation (leukemia) for bruising, parents cooperative	Court: substantial evidence supports dismissal; no indisputable evidence of abuse; review under substantial-evidence standard favors the court’s weighing of credibility
Whether California Rules of Court rule 5.695 required explicit reasons/minutes	Father: rule requires specific reasons at disposition, so dismissal must be reversed/remanded	Agency/Court: dismissal occurred at jurisdictional stage (not disposition), so rule 5.695 does not apply	Court: rule 5.695 inapplicable here; no reversible error
Whether mother needed treatment/rehabilitation to allow dismissal under § 390	Father: mother’s alleged history of physical discipline means she needs services	Agency/Court: mother denied abuse, complied with safety plan and parenting class; no evidence she needed rehabilitation	Court: substantial evidence supports implied finding mother did not need treatment; dismissal in child’s welfare interest

Key Cases Cited

In re Eric H., 54 Cal.App.4th 955 (authorizes dismissal under § 350(c) when agency fails to meet burden)
In re Roberto C., 209 Cal.App.4th 1241 (juvenile court as factfinder; appellate review is for substantial evidence)
In re Emily D., 234 Cal.App.4th 438 (dismissal under § 350(c) where allegations not proven)
In re E.A., 24 Cal.App.5th 648 (discusses required inquiry when a minor objects to dismissal)
Allen M. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.App.4th 1069 (court must determine interests of justice/welfare when minors object to dismissal)
In re Carl H., 7 Cal.App.5th 1019 (discusses § 390 findings and dismissal at disposition)
In re Aurora P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1142 (implied findings may be sufficient when supported by substantial evidence)
Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 42 (discussion of implied findings doctrine)
In re Marcus G., 73 Cal.App.4th 1008 (standard of appellate review for factual findings)