Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Richard H.
230 Cal. App. 4th 608
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Department filed a section 300 petition alleging Natasha and Richard’s children Quentin, Linda, Marcus, and S.H. were dependent due to Natasha’s drug use and Richard’s 1987 sexual abuse conviction and status as a registered sex offender.
- Jurisdiction and disposition hearing identified Richard’s conviction and his failure to register as a sex offender; Department urged that presumption under §355.1 supported jurisdiction.
- Richard argued the §355.1 presumption overreached and relied on statements in Department reports indicating he had not engaged in improper conduct since 1987 and had no rehabilitative therapy.
- The juvenile court sustained the petition against both Natasha and Richard, relied on the presumption, and removed Quentin and Linda from Richard’s custody, ordering services for him.
- Court of Appeal reversed and remanded to weigh all evidence without regard to §355.1 presumption, directing a new jurisdiction hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §355.1 presumption properly supported jurisdiction | Department argues presumption establishes current risk. | Richard contends presumption alone cannot sustain jurisdiction given contrary evidence. | Presumption cannot alone sustain; require weighing of all evidence on remand. |
| Whether Richard adequately rebutted §355.1 presumption | Department asserts insufficient rebuttal evidence beyond staleness. | Richard identifies statements and records showing non-propensity to harm. | Richard adequately rebutted the presumption with contrary evidence. |
| Necessity of remand to weigh evidence without §355.1 presumption | Department argues remand unnecessary due to overwhelming evidence of risk. | Richard argues remand required to apply totality of evidence. | Remand required to weigh all evidence without the presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2011) (limits and uses of §355.1 presumption in dependency cases)
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (2013) (presumption purpose and consideration of evidence)
- In re John S., 88 Cal.App.4th 1140 (2001) (presumption not conclusive; burden on production of evidence remains)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (2012) (standard for reviewing jurisdiction findings; deference to trial court)
- In re Esmeralda B., 11 Cal.App.4th 1036 (1992) (competent evidence admissibility for jurisdiction hearings)
- In re Heather B., 9 Cal.App.4th 553 (1992) (treatment of presumptions and admissible evidence)
- Farr v. County of Nevada, 187 Cal.App.4th 681 (2010) (difference between presumption affecting burden of production vs. proof)
- In re Lucero L., 22 Cal.4th 1227 (2000) (admissibility of social studies at jurisdiction hearings)
- Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.4th 149 (2013) (distinguishes cases applying §355.1 presumption; remand may be required)
- In re D.P., 225 Cal.App.4th 898 (2014) (considering whether there is sufficient evidence to rebut §355.1 presumption)