Lake County Department of Social Services v. K.B.
217 Cal. App. 4th 1067
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Two children (S.M., 11 weeks; A.M., 4 years) were detained after S.M. was found to have multiple healing and fresh fractures; pediatrician concluded injuries resulted from multiple episodes of inflicted, violent trauma. Parents were the sole caregivers and both denied knowing the cause.
- Dependency petitions under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 (including § 300(e) for S.M.) were sustained; juvenile court initially denied reunification services to both parents under § 361.5(b), finding clear and convincing evidence of severe physical abuse and related bypass grounds.
- Agency’s dispositional recommendation to deny services cited parents’ failure to acknowledge responsibility and history of volatile, violent interactions; assessment documented prior family violence and concerning parent behaviors during supervised visits.
- Less than three months after the dispositional order, Mother moved under § 388 seeking reunification services, presenting evidence she had separated from Father, obtained a domestic violence restraining order, attended parenting classes and some counseling.
- The juvenile court granted Mother reunification services, finding changed circumstances and that services were likely to result in reunification; Agency and minors appealed, arguing the court failed to make required § 361.5(c) findings and applied the wrong legal standard.
- Court of Appeal reversed: the juvenile court erred by not making the express § 361.5(c) findings (and, for (b)(6), the clear-and-convincing best-interests finding), and there was insufficient evidence to support those findings in any event; remanded to set a § 366.26 permanency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must make § 361.5(c) findings before granting reunification when modifying a dispositional order under § 388 | § 361.5(c) findings are mandatory even on post-dispositional § 388 relief; court must apply the statutory standards before granting services | Mother conceded the findings were required but argued any missing findings could be implied and that § 388 best-interests analysis sufficed | Held: § 361.5(c) findings are required and must be made expressly; § 388 does not excuse compliance with § 361.5(c) |
| Whether the juvenile court made required express findings (including clear-and-convincing best-interests under (b)(6)) | The court made no express § 361.5(c) findings for either child and therefore grant was unlawful | Mother argued findings could be implied and that the court’s change-of-circumstances/best-interests reasoning was adequate | Held: No express findings were made; implied findings insufficient (Nickolas F. requires express findings) |
| Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that services would likely prevent reabuse as required for a child detained under § 300(e) (b)(5) bypass | No evidence showed services would prevent reabuse because Mother denied any responsibility and refused to acknowledge abuse; thus no services would be likely to prevent reabuse | Mother pointed to separation, restraining order, classes and counseling as changed circumstances making services likely to succeed | Held: Even if required findings had been made, substantial evidence did not support a conclusion that services were likely to prevent reabuse given Mother’s persistent denial and the nature of S.M.’s injuries |
| Whether substantial evidence supported a clear-and-convincing best-interests finding for A.M. under (b)(6) | The brutality, multiplicity of injuries and parents’ denial made reunification unsafe; no clear-and-convincing showing reunification is in A.M.’s best interests | Mother relied on changed circumstances and progress in services to claim reunification would be in child’s best interests | Held: No substantial evidence supported a clear-and-convincing best-interests finding; court erred in granting services without that finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2012) (general rule favoring reunification and statutory framework summarized)
- In re Allison J., 190 Cal.App.4th 1106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (legislative intent behind § 361.5 bypass provisions limits services where they would not facilitate safe reunification)
- Nickolas F. v. Superior Court, 144 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (court must make express findings under § 361.5 when bypass grounds apply)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (standards for § 388 modification: preponderance of evidence)
- In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (insufficient evidence to support best-interests finding for reunification after severe abuse where parent denies responsibility)
- In re Ramone R., 132 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (similar holding on lack of substantial evidence for reunification where parent fails to acknowledge abuse)
- Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 1233 (Cal. 2010) (standard for exercising jurisdiction to decide moot issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review)