Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court
222 Cal. App. 4th 149
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Father convicted in 1986 and 1989 of violent sexual offenses (lewd acts and sodomy) against young boys; served 7 years in prison and was later civilly committed as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) for ~13 years.
- Multiple state-hospital psychological evaluations (1996–2009) diagnosed pedophilia and substance dependence; evaluators disagreed over time about SVP status and risk, and father intermittently refused treatment.
- In April 2009 a court denied recommitment and ordered father released; the record does not show the court’s reasons or whether conditions were imposed.
- After release father moved in with mother (who is developmentally disabled), used alcohol and marijuana, failed to maintain sex-offender registration, and father/minimized his past offenses; the couple had a son, S.G., born 2011.
- The Department filed a Welfare & Institutions Code §300 petition alleging S.G. was at substantial risk of sexual abuse due to father’s convictions and registered-sex-offender status; the dependency court dismissed the petition.
- The appellate court granted the Department’s writ, concluding respondent court lacked substantial evidence to overcome the statutory presumption of risk and directed the juvenile court to find jurisdiction under §300(b) and (d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Father/Respondent Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §355.1(d) presumption that prior sex convictions/registered status support dependency jurisdiction over child applies and was overcome | Father's convictions and registered SVP status create prima facie evidence of substantial risk to S.G.; Department presented expert showing grooming risk and post-release conduct supporting risk | Father argued crimes were remote, he had been released from commitment, some hospital evaluators later said he no longer met SVP criteria, and there was no evidence of present abuse or current substance dependence | Presumption applies; father failed to produce evidence to rebut it; dismissal unsupported by substantial evidence — jurisdiction required under §300(b),(d) |
| Whether passage of time and father’s unconditional release from SVP commitment rebut the presumption of risk | Release does not negate presumption absent evidence explaining why risk no longer exists; Department’s evidence of post-release conduct undermines claimed rehabilitation | Respondent court relied on elapsed time and release as evidence of diminished risk | Time and release alone insufficient to rebut presumption without supporting evidence; court erred to rely on them |
| Weight of conflicting psychological evaluations (2005–08 favorable vs. 2013 expert unfavorable) | Post-release behavior (no treatment, substance use, failure to register, minimization) reduced reliability of pre-release favorable evaluations; 2013 expert tied grooming risk to current facts | Respondent court gave greater weight to state-hospital evaluators who had long contact with father | Court must assess current risk to child; earlier favorable evaluations premised on continued treatment and supports that did not occur; substantial-evidence ruling favored Department |
| Necessity of actual prior or current abuse before exercising jurisdiction | Jurisdiction may be exercised when substantial risk of severe sexual abuse exists even without prior abuse of that child; severity lowers required probability | Respondent court emphasized lack of any evidence father had molested S.G. to date | Actual abuse not required; given severity and probability, juvenile court may assume jurisdiction to protect child |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.K., 174 Cal.App.4th 1426 (substantial-evidence standard in dependency review)
- In re Savannah M., 131 Cal.App.4th 1387 (inferences to support dependency findings must be logical, not speculative)
- In re E.B., 184 Cal.App.4th 568 (§355.1 presumption from prior sex conviction)
- Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 641 (statutory scheme and evaluation process for SVP commitment)
- In re John S., 88 Cal.App.4th 1140 (registered sex-offender status and older convictions can support dependency jurisdiction when rebuttal evidence absent)
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (juvenile court need not wait for actual abuse; severity of harm affects required probability for jurisdiction)