31 Cal.App.5th 899
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Minor (N.O.) became a dependent after Mother was arrested for smuggling marijuana while Minor was in the car; Minor was placed with maternal grandmother in Mexico and parents received services via DIF under SD County Agency oversight.
- Mother completed Agency-ordered services, Minor was returned to Mother's care (trial placement/placement in December 2016) and appeared to be thriving; Agency recommended terminating dependency at later reviews.
- A December 30, 2016 domestic‑violence incident between Mother and Father surfaced in early 2017; Agency requested DIF provide DV services to Mother, but the record was unclear whether DIF offered or Mother completed DV services.
- Communication between Agency and Mexico’s DIF was frequently delayed or incomplete; DIF last reported seeing Minor and Mother in late September 2017 and described Minor as doing well.
- Agency recommended termination of jurisdiction under Welfare & Institutions Code §364(c); Minor (through counsel) opposed termination and sought continuances and further investigation, arguing risk remained and Minor was effectively "missing." The juvenile court held a contested hearing and terminated jurisdiction; Minor appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §364(c) continuation burden fell on Minor when Agency recommended termination | Minor: court should retain jurisdiction because conditions (DV, Father’s substance abuse, lack of recent welfare check) continued or were unknown | Agency: default is termination; it recommended termination and available evidence showed Minor safe; further continuances would not produce useful information from DIF | Held: Minor bore burden to show by preponderance conditions persisted; she failed to meet it and court properly terminated jurisdiction |
| Whether failure to complete DV services or make Minor available to DIF required continued supervision | Minor: Mother did not complete DV program and/or blocked home visits, so risk remained | Agency: Mother attempted to engage DIF and completed Agency-ordered services; DIF assessed Minor as doing well and did not indicate ongoing concerns | Held: Court properly found record did not establish ongoing conditions justifying jurisdiction; Major premise that Mother refused services was unsupported |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion by refusing further continuances to locate/assess Minor | Minor: counsel sought continuances until Minor was located/assessed; termination while Minor was "missing" was improper | Agency: further continuances unlikely to yield new info—Agency lacked jurisdiction in Mexico and depended on DIF, which was unresponsive | Held: No abuse of discretion; court reasonably declined indefinite continuances and terminated jurisdiction given the evidence available |
| Whether Minor’s statutory right to counsel interview (Welf. & Inst. Code §317(e)(2)) was violated | Minor: counsel should have interviewed 4‑year‑old Minor to ascertain wishes and well‑being before termination | Agency/Court: Minor was represented by counsel who vigorously advocated; Minor had just turned four and was unavailable for assessment; any omission was harmless | Held: Issue forfeited if not raised below; in any event no deprivation requiring reversal — any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aurora P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1142 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (when agency recommends termination, the child bears burden to show conditions warrant continued jurisdiction)
- In re J.F., 228 Cal.App.4th 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (interpretation of §364(c) – "conditions that would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction")
- In re D.B., 239 Cal.App.4th 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (discussion of §364(c) standards and burdens)
- In re I.W., 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate review when party with burden fails to carry it: whether evidence compels a different legal conclusion)
- In re Claudia S., 131 Cal.App.4th 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (due process concerns where hearings proceed without parents or counsel and no information about children)
- In re Jean B., 84 Cal.App.4th 1443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (termination of jurisdiction improper where child remained at large with an at‑risk parent)
- In re Baby Boy M., 141 Cal.App.4th 588 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (error in proceeding without meaningful information about the child’s whereabouts and welfare)