Orange County Social Services Agency v. N.B.
239 Cal. App. 4th 1073
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- D.B., born 2005, was made a dependent child after neglect findings in Dec 2012; mother retained custody under a family maintenance plan but child was briefly removed after mother’s severe intoxication in Jan 2013; dependency was based on parental neglect/domestic-violence history.
- Mother completed substance-abuse treatment, attended conjoint therapy with D.B., obtained stable housing and employment, tested clean, and by June 2014 had substantially complied with her case plan; SSA recommended returning custody to Mother with continued supervision and later recommended terminating dependency with exit orders.
- Father had a history of domestic-violence arrests and restraining orders, intermittent incarceration, protracted probation issues, THC positives, and inconsistent engagement during supervised visits; SSA described visits as appropriate but of inconsistent quality and noted verbally aggressive conduct by Father outside visits.
- At the January 7–12, 2015 section 364(c) six‑month review, the social worker testified Mother needed no further services and recommended termination; the juvenile court initially found the section 300 conditions no longer existed but conditioned termination on issuance of a restraining order against Father.
- Father objected to the restraining order; the juvenile court sustained his objection, declined to issue the order, and instead continued dependency jurisdiction and imposed limited contact restrictions and visitation scheduling through SSA; Mother appealed the continuance order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SSA) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 364(c) required termination of dependency jurisdiction because the conditions justifying initial assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed | SSA — termination required; SSA presented evidence that Mother had remedied the conditions and recommended termination | Mother — juvenile court should have terminated jurisdiction; Father — objected to a restraining order and argued against issuance, sought to preserve visitation and contact | Reversed: court must terminate jurisdiction under §364(c) when social worker fails to prove the original §300 conditions still exist; continuing jurisdiction solely because Father objected to a restraining order was improper |
| Whether the juvenile court could condition termination on issuance of a restraining/protective order or retain jurisdiction to manage Father’s conduct and visitation | SSA — may recommend protective/visitation orders but did not prove continued jurisdiction was necessary | Juvenile court/Father — argued restraining order was contested and court retained discretion to keep case open to manage risks and preserve Father–child relationship | Court held that lack of proof of continuing §300 conditions defeats keeping the dependency open; the court may, after terminating jurisdiction, consider protective orders under §213.5 and visitation orders under §362.4 but cannot use contested restraining-order refusal as a basis to continue dependency jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gabriel L., 172 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App.) (section 364 procedures govern review hearings for children returned to a parent’s custody)
- In re J.F., 228 Cal.App.4th 202 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpretive discussion of section 364’s requirement that conditions exist that "would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction")
- In re Janee W., 140 Cal.App.4th 1444 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpretation supporting termination when initial conditions no longer exist)
- In re N.S., 97 Cal.App.4th 167 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard of review for section 364 findings — substantial evidence)
- In re Brittany K., 127 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App.) (scope of protective orders to shield children from troubling or unwarrantedly meddlesome conduct)
- Tarrant Bell Prop., LLC v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 538 (Cal.) (use of "shall" denotes a mandatory act)