46 Cal.App.5th 646
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Children A.G. (7) and C.G. (5) removed December 2016 after SSA alleged Mother’s methamphetamine use, homelessness, and exposure of the children to domestic violence; Father was incarcerated with a history of substance- and violence-related offenses.
- Juvenile court sustained dependency petition, ordered reunification services; both parents completed substantial services, tested negative for drugs, and maintained consistent (generally appropriate) visits.
- Social worker Janet Ford repeatedly expressed concern about the parents’ conflictual relationship and Mother’s ongoing contact with P.B. (a prior domestic violence figure); Ford’s concerns were largely speculative and she sometimes encouraged parents to co-parent earlier in the case.
- Mother’s therapist testified Mother met therapy goals, posed no safety risk, and had no therapeutic objection to unmonitored contact or her continued (nonromantic) contact with P.B.
- The 18‑month review hearing was delayed repeatedly and did not conclude until 30–34 months after removal; the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 permanency hearing based on perceived risk from parental relationships and insight.
- Court of Appeal granted writ: SSA failed to prove by a preponderance that returning the children would create a substantial risk of detriment; remanded for a continued 18‑month review hearing and criticized the lengthy delays and the speculative nature of SSA’s evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSA proved by a preponderance that returning the children would create a substantial risk of detriment | Parents: SSA failed to identify specific, evidentiary risks; parents complied with services, stayed sober, therapists supported return | SSA/juvenile court: parents’ ongoing conflict, Father’s limited insight, and Mother’s contact with P.B. create future risk to children | Reversed. SSA’s evidence was speculative and not substantial; no demonstrated detriment to support terminating reunification or setting a .26 hearing |
| Whether the lengthy delays to the 18‑month review violated the dependency timetable and affected proceedings | Parents: long continuances were inexcusable and undermined children’s right to timely permanency | Respondent: delays attributed to multiple continuances by parties and court scheduling conflicts | Court admonished the delays as inexcusable and contrary to statutory purpose; emphasized need to avoid continuances but did not order immediate return on that basis |
| Whether juvenile court properly credited social worker testimony over treating therapist and parental progress | Parents: therapist’s favorable testimony and objective service completion outweigh social worker’s speculative concerns | SSA: social worker’s experience and risk assessment justified continued oversight and permanency planning | Court found Ford’s concerns were vague and inconsistent with record; therapist’s evidence and parents’ progress undermine the detriment finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Precious J., 42 Cal.App.4th 1463 (recognizing family preservation as first priority in dependency cases)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (placing burden on state to prove detriment at review hearings)
- Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (review by substantial evidence for juvenile court findings)
- David B. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.4th 768 (describing the fairly high standard for detriment findings)
- Blanca P. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1738 (vacating detriment finding where evidence of risk was vague and speculative)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (reversal of dispositional order does not automatically require immediate return; remand for further proceedings)