In re S.S. CA2/7
B309447
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- In Nov. 2019 deputies arrested Sesar Uribe for meth after observing him leave a motel room; Veronica and her two young children were in the room and Veronica was arrested on an outstanding warrant. Deputies found meth in a bag tossed from Uribe’s car; no drugs or weapons were found inside the motel room.
- The Los Angeles County DCFS detained the children and filed a §300(b) petition alleging (b-1) Veronica allowed Uribe (a meth user) access to the children. The petition was later amended to allege (b-2) Veronica’s history of drug involvement and associations placed the children at risk, and (b-3) father Gilbert’s substance history likewise posed a risk.
- Veronica denied knowing about drugs, said the family was homeless and had stayed one night with Uribe, and agreed to testing after release; she was released in Feb. 2020. DCFS reported past arrests and an alleged positive prenatal meth test; Lucy (maternal relative) denied observing drug use by Veronica.
- The juvenile court sustained count b-2 (as to Veronica) and count b-3 (as to Gilbert, after striking an allegation), declared the children dependents, and removed them from parental custody; Veronica appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held substantial evidence did not support jurisdiction under §300(b) as to Veronica or Gilbert and therefore reversed the disposition removing the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Veronica) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(b) jurisdiction was supported as to Veronica based on one-night motel stay with Uribe | Veronica exposed children to drugs by staying with Uribe; proximity to drugs and her associations establish present risk | No evidence drugs were in the room or accessible to children; no ongoing risk at time of adjudication | Reversed — insufficient evidence of a current, identified risk; one-night stay and general association insufficient |
| Whether Veronica’s prior positive prenatal meth test and arrest history support jurisdiction | Past drug use and arrests show ongoing association with drugs, supporting risk finding | Prenatal test and past arrests were not pleaded as a basis in b-2 and do not show current risk or nexus | Reversed — prior test/arrests do not substitute for proof of current, particularized risk and were not pleaded as the basis for b-2 |
| Whether §300(b) jurisdiction was supported as to Gilbert based on drug history | Gilbert’s long history of drug offenses shows unresolved substance problem posing risk to young children | Gilbert was incarcerated during the relevant period; no finding of current substance abuse or evidence he supervised children while impaired | Reversed — no finding of current substance abuse, no nexus to a current substantial risk; presumption from Drake M. inapplicable |
| Whether disposition removal should stand absent jurisdiction | Removal necessary to protect children given alleged drug exposure and parental noncompliance | Veronica offered conditional placement and contested noncompliance claims; removal depends on valid jurisdictional findings | Reversed — disposition reversed because jurisdiction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.W., 32 Cal.App.5th 840 (discusses elements required for §300(b) jurisdiction)
- In re Roger S., 31 Cal.App.5th 572 (focus on evaluating current risk at time of adjudication)
- In re J.N., 62 Cal.App.5th 767 (requires nexus between parental past conduct and current specific risk)
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in dependency cases)
- People v. Perez, 164 Cal.App.4th 1462 (holding that drugs/paraphernalia in plain view and within easy access can endanger a child)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (discusses prima facie effect of a finding of parental substance abuse for very young children)
- In re Christopher R., 225 Cal.App.4th 1210 (applies substance-abuse presumption where court found current abuse)