Maggie S. v. Superior Court
220 Cal. App. 4th 662
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mother (Maggie S.) was incarcerated when she gave birth to A.C. on Dec. 30, 2011; both tested negative for drugs. Mother’s release was scheduled for July 2013.
- On Jan. 6, 2012 DCFS filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) and (g) and detained the newborn, reporting Mother had designated the maternal uncle and grandparents but no willing relative was available.
- Mother had completed a written newborn placement form (Nov. 15, 2011) naming the maternal uncle and godmother Mary K. as prospective caregivers; Mary K. told the social worker on Jan. 4–5, 2012 she would care for the baby.
- DCFS’s reports, however, stated it could not reach Mary K., later noted Mary K.’s prior foster license issues and an agency rejection for failure to release medical records, and placed A.C. in foster care.
- The juvenile court found jurisdiction, denied reunification services, set a §366.26 permanency hearing, and later terminated Mother’s parental rights after finding the child adoptable.
- Mother petitioned for extraordinary writ relief challenging jurisdiction; the Court of Appeal granted the petition, reversed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court had jurisdiction under §300(g) because Mother could not arrange care while incarcerated | Mother: She had arranged care in writing and by contact — named Mary K., who told DCFS she would care for A.C. | DCFS: Mary K. was unsuitable (prior license issues, agency rejection) and later withdrew willingness, so Mother failed to arrange appropriate care | Reversed: At time of detention/jurisdiction hearing Mother had arranged care via Mary K.; §300(g) jurisdiction improper based on DCFS’s incomplete/misleading information |
| Whether jurisdiction could be sustained under §300(b) (risk of physical harm) | Mother: No evidence of current substantial risk of serious physical harm at time of hearing; Mother had a willing caregiver | DCFS: Cited Mary K.’s past licensing/health record concerns to question suitability | Reversed: No substantial evidence of present risk; §300(b) not supported |
| Whether Mother’s failure to seek writ review bars relief (procedural advisement) | Mother: Court failed to give required oral advisement about writ remedy; appellate relief should be allowed | DCFS: Moved to dismiss appeal for failing to seek a writ | Granted relief: Court excused formal writ requirement because the juvenile court did not give oral advisement and therefore treated the appeal as a writ petition |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (court explains §300(g) requires inability to arrange care; an incarcerated parent who has arranged care defeats jurisdiction)
- In re Noe F., 213 Cal.App.4th 358 (§300(b) requires evidence of substantial risk of serious physical harm at time of hearing)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (risk must exist at time of hearing)
- In re Athena P., 103 Cal.App.4th 617 (orders setting §366.26 hearing require expedited review principles)
- Jennifer T. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.4th 254 (writ requirement and advisement when setting §366.26 hearing)
- In re Anthony B., 72 Cal.App.4th 1017 (orders made contemporaneously with setting §366.26 hearing reviewed by extraordinary writ)
- In re A.H., 218 Cal.App.4th 337 (court must give oral advisement of writ remedy to parties present)