John G. v. Superior Court CA4/1
D070074
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- Child Jayden (born ~2011) was removed after his infant half-sister H.O. suffered a nonaccidental frenulum tear and failure to thrive; dependency petitions under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 followed.
- John G. is a noncustodial, nonbiological presumed father who had limited contact with Jayden after 2012; he later sought placement and reunification services.
- Jayden was placed with paternal grandparents who became de facto parents; he showed significant anxiety, separation fears, and bed‑wetting, and was bonded to his sister and the de facto parents.
- Agency initially had concerns about John’s living situation and ability to provide, but an ICPC-approved Arizona placement was later secured and several supervised visits (including weeklong visits) occurred with generally satisfactory parenting but intermittent incidents raising concern.
- At the contested 18‑month review the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that placing Jayden with John would be detrimental, terminated reunification services, and set a § 366.26 hearing; the Court of Appeal denied John’s writ petition challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (John) | Defendant's Argument (Agency/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to find return to John would create substantial risk of detriment at the 18‑month review | John argued the evidence did not show a substantial risk of harm and pointed to successful supervised visits and ICPC approval of his home | Agency pointed to Jayden’s serious anxiety/fear of abandonment, weak bond with John, strong sibling and de facto‑parent bonds, and incidents during visits indicating ongoing risk | Court held substantial evidence supported the detriment finding and denied the petition |
| Whether the court erred by applying § 361.2(a) standard instead of § 366.22(a) at the 18‑month review | John argued the wrong statutory standard (clear and convincing under § 361.2) was applied | Agency/respondent noted the hearing was an 18‑month review governed by § 366.22(a) (preponderance) | Court found the misstatement harmless because § 361.2(a)’s standard is stricter; no prejudice shown |
| Role of lack of parent‑child bond in detriment analysis | John contended lack of bond alone insufficient to justify continued removal | Agency argued lack of bond combined with Jayden’s anxiety, sibling bond, and wish to remain made placement with John detrimental | Court held lack of bond was a proper and significant factor when considered with the child’s emotional needs and family circumstances |
| Reliance on emotional harm/separation from siblings as basis for detriment | John challenged emotional‑harm rationale as insufficiently connected to dependency basis | Agency emphasized that § 366.22/366.21 allow consideration of present emotional risk, not limited to the original grounds for removal | Court agreed emotional harm/separation from siblings is a legitimate basis for a detriment finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridget A. v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.4th 285 (2007) (describing 18‑month review as critical juncture and balancing return vs. permanent plan)
- In re Joseph B., 42 Cal.App.4th 890 (1996) (sections 366.21/366.22 allow detriment findings based on present emotional or physical risk, not limited to original removal grounds)
- In re Luke M., 107 Cal.App.4th 1412 (2003) (standard of review and relevance of factors in placement decisions)
- David B. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (2004) (lack of parent‑child bond alone is normally insufficient to justify continued removal)
- In re Marquis D., 38 Cal.App.4th 1813 (1995) (detriment finding under § 361.2 requires clear and convincing evidence)