In re Travis C.
B276877M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- Mother (Allison S.) suffers from schizoaffective disorder with hallucinations, delusions, suicidal ideation, and inconsistent adherence to psychotropic medication; she also used marijuana daily. Maternal grandparents frequently intervened and provided primary care when Mother was symptomatic.
- Father (J.C.) regularly visited and cared for the children but was unaware of the full extent of Mother’s condition; he was given custody at various points.
- DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 300(b)(1) petition alleging the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to Mother’s untreated mental illness and substance use.
- At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing the juvenile court amended the petition to remove allegations about Father and to strike the separate substance-abuse paragraph, sustained the petition as amended, and placed the children with parents on condition they live with maternal grandparents.
- DCFS later filed a § 387 supplemental petition; the juvenile court removed the children from Mother and placed them with Father. DCFS argued that order mooted Mother’s appeal from the § 300 adjudication; the Court of Appeal denied that motion and reviewed the § 300 ruling on the record as of the time it was rendered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under § 300(b)(1) | Mother’s untreated mental illness and inconsistent medication created a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the children | Risk was speculative; mental illness alone does not presumptively create jurisdiction; amended petition facts show no substantial risk of serious physical harm | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports jurisdiction based on Mother’s untreated, severe mental illness, suicide threats, episodes while children present, and intermittent noncompliance with medication |
| Whether the Court of Appeal should dismiss Mother’s appeal as moot because of the later § 387 order | The § 387 adjudication created an alternative basis for jurisdiction, rendering the § 300 appeal moot | § 387 cannot supply independent jurisdiction if the original § 300 adjudication lacked jurisdiction; appeal not moot | Denied dismissal: § 387 does not cure lack of jurisdiction and cannot moot the appeal; court reviewed the § 300 ruling on the original record |
| Whether the juvenile court’s amendment (striking allegations about Father and substance abuse) undercut the jurisdictional finding | The court need only find any statutory basis for jurisdiction on substantial evidence; amendment does not defeat the unamended statutory allegation | Amendment of supporting factual paragraphs shows no finding that risk of serious harm existed | Amendment did not negate the statutory jurisdictional allegation; the court sustained the petition as amended and jurisdiction stands |
| Timeliness of DCFS’s cross-appeal about the court’s amendments | N/A (DCFS pursued cross-appeal) | DCFS’s notice of appeal was untimely | Cross-appeal dismissed as untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2011) (mootness principles where subsequent proceedings supply jurisdictional support)
- Kimberly R. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2002) (mental illness alone does not automatically establish substantial risk of harm)
- In re A.B., 225 Cal.App.4th 1358 (2014) (distinguishing petitions that establish independent jurisdiction)
- In re David M., 134 Cal.App.4th 822 (2005) (risk speculative where child well cared for and living conditions adequate)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (2005) (standard of review: substantial-evidence review of juvenile findings)
- In re Joshua G., 129 Cal.App.4th 189 (2005) (section 387 supplemental petition requires preexisting jurisdiction)