In re S.P. CA4/1
D070065
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- In October 2015, five-year-old S.P. was found crying and walking alone at dusk on a busy street in Chico after Mother separated from him; Mother did not return for over an hour. Child Protective Services (Butte County) detained S.P. and filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) and (g).
- Records showed prior referrals: a 2012 substantiated neglect referral and July 2015 incidents (child fell from a window in a shelter; concerns about Mother's supervision). In August 2015 Mother had a positive drug screen for methamphetamine, amphetamine, opiates, and THC.
- Mother repeatedly refused or failed to appear for voluntary prejurisdiction drug testing and was at times uncooperative or hostile with social workers; she later moved to San Diego County and the case transferred between counties before San Diego assumed disposition responsibility.
- At disposition S.P. exhibited emotional/behavioral problems (bedwetting, self‑deprecating statements, threats, hospitalization) and demonstrated regression associated with contact or missed contact with Mother.
- The juvenile court found jurisdiction under §300(b) (failure/inability to supervise and substance abuse) and removed S.P. from Mother’s custody under §361(c)(1), placing him in foster care and ordering reunification services. Mother appealed jurisdiction and disposition; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b) based on failure to supervise | Mother left the young child unattended after dusk and had a history of prior neglect incidents, so a substantial risk of harm existed | The lapse was a brief miscommunication and speculative; a single incident without more cannot justify jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction supported — repeated lapses and prior incidents made future neglect reasonably likely, supporting §300(b) jurisdiction |
| Whether Mother’s pre‑jurisdiction refusal to drug test and prior positive test support finding of current substance abuse risk | Refusal to test and prior positive August 2015 test reasonably supported an inference of ongoing substance abuse that impaired care | Mother denied substance abuse and argued she had no obligation to submit to prejurisdiction testing (citing Laurie S.) | Court: Held refusal and prior positive test could be considered; substance abuse plus supervision failures supported jurisdiction |
| Whether removal under §361(c)(1) was supported by clear and convincing evidence (substantial danger and no reasonable means short of removal) | S.P. showed emotional harm tied to Mother’s conduct; Mother’s pattern of failing to supervise, exposure to domestic violence, and noncooperation made placement with Mother unsafe | Mother argued less restrictive alternatives and challenged Agency’s efforts as deficient due to transfer delays | Court: Removal upheld — substantial danger to child’s emotional/physical well‑being and no reasonable protective alternative given Mother’s conduct and lack of reliable compliance |
| Whether the Agency made reasonable efforts to avoid removal under §361(d) | Agency provided/preoffered services across counties and social workers engaged with Mother; Mother refused services and testing | Mother argued transfer delays and limited efforts undermined reasonableness of efforts | Court: Agency’s efforts were reasonable under the circumstances; Mother’s noncooperation justified removal despite procedural delays |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (juvenile court may act before actual injury to prevent harm)
- In re David M., 134 Cal.App.4th 822 (substance abuse alone insufficient for jurisdiction absent specific risk to child)
- In re Christopher R., 225 Cal.App.4th 1210 (parental refusal to voluntarily drug test may be treated as evidence of current use)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (substance abuse can be prima facie evidence of inability to provide regular care where it affects home safety)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (jurisdiction support where parental cocaine addiction affected child’s environment)
- In re Savannah M., 131 Cal.App.4th 1387 (appellate review requires more than speculative inference to support jurisdiction)
- Laurie S. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.4th 195 (limits on compelled prejurisdiction psychological evaluations)