Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. J.J.
56 Cal. 4th 766
| Cal. | 2013Background
- DCFS petitioned five children of J.J. (father) to be dependents under W&I Code §300, alleging sexual abuse of daughter I.J. and risk to siblings.
- Father sexually abused I.J. over a three-year period, including fondling, digital penetration, rape, forced exposure, and porn viewing; conduct found by the juvenile court.
- No evidence of abuse or mistreatment of the three sons; they were unaware of the sister’s abuse prior to the proceeding and felt safe at home.
- Juvenile court declared all five children dependents, removing them from father and placing with mother with monitored visits and counseling orders.
- Court of Appeal upheld the finding as to the daughters; split on whether sons could also be dependents; majority affirmed, dissenting on sons.
- California Supreme Court held that severe, prolonged abuse of one child can support dependency for all children under §300, including siblings, by considering §300(j) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a father's abuse of a daughter support dependency for his sons under §300? | Department: abuse creates substantial risk to siblings; jurisdiction extends to all children. | Father: no evidence sons were abused or at risk; abuse to daughter alone insufficient for sons. | Yes; abuse can support dependency for all children. |
| How does §300(j) govern dependency when a sibling was abused but others were not? | Maria R. and related authorities support broad, totality-of-circumstances approach. | P.A. and some cases require more direct or demonstrable risk to each child. | Court may rely on totality of circumstances to find substantial risk to siblings under §300(j). |
| Is §355.1(d) relevance limited to prior findings or broader danger to siblings? | Prior finding of abuse or related evidence supports jurisdiction over siblings. | §355.1(d) not triggered here due to no prior finding, but indicates legislative intent to protect siblings. | §355.1(d) evidentiary role supports, but is not limited to prior findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re P.A., 144 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal.App.4th 2004) (sibling risk principle; abuse of one child can justify jurisdiction over others)
- In re Karen R., 95 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal.App.4th 2001) (aberrant abuse can affect all minors in the home)
- In re Maria R., 185 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (limits on using abuse of daughter to predict abuse of son; analyzes §300(j) factors)
- In re Rubisela E., 85 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal.App.4th 2000) (recognizes risk to brothers but cautions against assuming abuse of one gender implies others)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (reviewing court cautions against broad application without support)
- In re Jordan R., 205 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal.App.4th 2012) (upholds or rejects jurisdiction depending on case-specific evidence)
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2012) (parental rights limits in dependency adjudications)