1 Cal. App. 5th 606
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2013 a section 300 petition was filed after 9-year-old Armando arrived at school with bruises from his father; mother retained legal/physical custody and received family maintenance services while father received reunification services.
- Armando was later placed in a group home after severe behavioral and safety concerns; parents both received services and the child was returned to parents on a trial basis prior to the 18‑month review.
- By October 2015 the agency recommended terminating juvenile-court jurisdiction, awarding physical custody to father, and issuing joint legal custody with mother receiving visitation; the agency reported Armando was doing better with father.
- At the October 29, 2015 section 364 review mother (through counsel) requested a contested evidentiary hearing to oppose dismissal, the proposed custody change, and to seek additional services; the agency and the child’s counsel objected, arguing mother lacked standing.
- The juvenile court adopted the agency’s recommendations, dismissed the dependency, awarded physical custody to father, and denied mother an evidentiary hearing; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother had the right to an evidentiary hearing to challenge termination of dependency jurisdiction under §364 | Mother: she may present evidence and contest termination and exit orders at a §364 hearing | Agency: §364 favors termination and parents lack standing to contest dismissal/exit orders at that hearing | Court: Mother had the right to present evidence at a §364 hearing; denial of a contested hearing violated due process |
| Whether mother could challenge juvenile-court exit orders (custody, visitation, services) at the §364 hearing | Mother: exit orders are part of termination and are subject to contest at §364; she sought custody and additional services | Agency: exit-order issues were outside §364 scope (relying on Elaine E.); custody/placement should be litigated in family court | Court: Exit orders are reviewable at §364; juvenile court may issue protective exit orders and cannot delegate custody/visitation decisions to family court |
| Relevance of mother’s proposed evidence to the §364 inquiry | Mother: evidence about custody risk and need for services was directly relevant to whether jurisdiction should continue | Agency: mother’s specific contentions were irrelevant to the statutory termination inquiry | Court: Mother’s evidence could be relevant to whether conditions justifying jurisdiction persist; agency’s relevancy objection rejected |
| Whether the juvenile court’s error in refusing a contested hearing was harmless | Agency: social-worker reports support dismissal; any error was harmless | Mother: being denied the chance to present contradictory evidence made harmless‑error review inappropriate | Court: Error was not harmless; the record lacked the evidence mother could have presented and due process required an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aurora P., 241 Cal.App.4th 1142 (mother may challenge termination under §364; parent may present evidence) (adopted)
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (juvenile court may issue exit orders conditioning custody/visitation on parental counseling)
- In re Sarah M., 233 Cal.App.3d 1486 (distinguished; previously held §364 limited in scope for certain factual patterns)
- In re Elaine E., 221 Cal.App.3d 809 (agency relied on this case to argue custody/visitation outside §364 scope)
- In re J.T., 228 Cal.App.4th 953 (juvenile dependency court’s powers and distinctions from family court; exit orders not governed by Family Code)
- In re Malinda S., 51 Cal.3d 368 (due process requires opportunity to be heard and to present/cross-examine witnesses)