Orange County Social Services Agency v. Debra T.
193 Cal. App. 4th 685
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- BT was conceived from an unlawful relationship between Debra (adult) and Miguel (minor).
- Debra was arrested and SSA detained BT and Debra’s three other children on grounds of neglect and risk of sexual abuse.
- Juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over BT based on risk of sexual abuse/neglect and awarded Miguel full custody with Debra on monitored visits.
- Debra appeals, arguing lack of substantial evidence supporting jurisdiction; record shows Debra was a capable caregiver with an exemplary track record.
- Miguel’s and Debra’s varied accounts of their relationship were central to SSA’s allegations; paternity was established via DNA.
- On review, court reverses the jurisdictional finding, remanding to dismiss BT as a dependent and discharge BT from placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial evidence BT faced serious risk under §300(b)? | SSA contends Debra’s lapses in judgment and arrest created risk to BT. | Debra’s conduct did not show BT faced risk of neglect or harm in future. | No substantial evidence; insufficient basis for §300(b) jurisdiction. |
| Did Debra's relationship with Miguel create a risk of sexual abuse under §300(d)? | SSA argues relationship evidence shows risk of sexual abuse to BT via Debra's conduct. | No evidence BT was at risk of sexual abuse by Debra; other siblings denied abuse; no expert support. | No substantial evidence of risk of sexual abuse; §300(d) not supported. |
| Was there substantial evidence Debra’s alcohol use impaired care under §300(b)? | SSA suggests Debra’s beer consumption demonstrated impairment and risk to BT. | Beer drinking did not demonstrably impair care; frequent negative tests and absence of neglect. | Not shown that alcohol use endangered BT; no causal link established. |
| Did Jesse’s failure to protect BT constitute substantial risk under §300(b)? | SSA claimed Jesse should have expelled Debra to protect BT and others. | Evidence shows Debra was not a danger to BT; Jesse protected children and SSA overreached. | No substantial evidence of failure to protect; insufficient basis for jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Savannah M., 131 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (substantial risk requires future substantial harm; past conduct probative if likely to continue)
- In re R.M., 175 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (causation and sufficiency of evidence for §300(b) as to risk)
- In re S.O., 103 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (past risk evidence relevant if continuing risk exists)
- In re James R., 176 Cal.App.4th 129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (mere possibility of alcohol abuse without causation cannot support §300(b))
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (Cal. 2009) (dep. focus is protecting children; not punishing parent)
- In re Maria R., 185 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (no empirical basis to assume risk of abuse without evidence)