72 Cal.App.5th 495
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Scarlett V., born in Honduras in 2013, entered the U.S. in 2015 with her parents; she and her sister alleged physical abuse by their father, Franklin.
- The Los Angeles DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code §300 petition; the juvenile court sustained the petition based on domestic violence and Franklin’s physical discipline and declared Scarlett a dependent, removing her from Franklin and placing her with her mother.
- Scarlett (through counsel) requested Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings under Code Civ. Proc. §155 (form JV-356): dependency/placement, reunification with a parent not viable due to abuse/neglect, and that return to Honduras is not in her best interest.
- The Department did not object, but the juvenile court denied the §155 request as “discretionary,” terminated jurisdiction, and awarded custody to Scarlett’s mother; Scarlett appealed the denial of SIJ findings.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding §155 requires mandatory SIJ findings when supported by evidence, and Scarlett’s uncontradicted evidence compelled the requested findings as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court may deny §155 SIJ findings as discretionary | Scarlett: §155 is mandatory if evidence supports findings | Juvenile court: making SIJ findings is discretionary | Court: §155 requires the court to issue findings when evidence supports them; denial as "discretionary" was legal error |
| Proper standard to evaluate §155 requests (substantial evidence v. preponderance) | Scarlett: evidence before court supported findings under either standard | Juvenile court (and some authority): petitioner must prove facts by preponderance | Court: regardless of standard (O.C. substantial-evidence vs S.H.R. preponderance), here error because evidence was uncontradicted and compelled findings |
| Whether evidence compelled SIJ findings in this case | Scarlett: dependency, unreunifiability with father, and best-interest facts were established and uncontradicted | Department: presented no contradictory evidence at the SIJ hearing; juvenile court made no contrary factual findings | Court: Scarlett’s unimpeached, uncontradicted evidence required the juvenile court to enter the §155 findings; reversed and directed entry of findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bianka M. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.5th 1004 (Cal. 2018) (explains SIJ purpose and §155 role in authorizing state-court findings)
- O.C. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.5th 76 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held issuance of SIJ findings mandatory if substantial evidence supports them)
- Guardianship of S.H.R., 68 Cal.App.5th 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (held petitioner must prove §155 facts by a preponderance at trial level)
- In re Israel O., 233 Cal.App.4th 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (describes state courts’ duty to make preliminary SIJ findings)
- In re L.W., 32 Cal.App.5th 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (defines substantial-evidence standard language)
- Eddie E. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.4th 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (best-interest error where child had no return option in home country)
- Leslie H. v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.4th 340 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (error to order return where unaccompanied minor had no safe caregivers abroad)
- Alex R. v. Superior Court, 248 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discusses §155 jurisdiction and forms)