R.F. v. Super. Ct. CA2/4
B316843
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 13, 2022Background
- Mother had prior DCFS history: two older half‑siblings (A.F., D.F.) previously adjudicated and ultimately adopted after mother’s parental rights were terminated. A.F. suffered extensive, severe injuries in 2018 consistent with inflicted trauma.
- Mother was convicted of child cruelty (Pen. Code §273a) related to A.F.’s injuries and served time; she later denied responsibility and repeatedly lied or concealed facts about A.F.’s injuries.
- Leo (born Oct. 2019) was detained after DCFS filed a dependency petition alleging risk under Welf. & Inst. Code §300 based on A.F.’s abuse of her sibling; Leo has developmental delays and special needs.
- At disposition the juvenile court denied mother reunification services under Welf. & Inst. Code §361.5(b)(6) (severe physical harm to a sibling and reunification would not benefit the child) and set a §366.26 permanency hearing.
- Mother sought extraordinary writ relief challenging the denial; the Court of Appeal denied the petition, concluding substantial evidence supported the bypass and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCFS/County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §361.5(b)(6) bypass applies (severe physical harm to sibling and reunification would not benefit child) | Insufficient evidence that mother inflicted severe harm to A.F. or that reunification would not benefit Leo | A.F.’s documented severe, multiple injuries, mother’s conviction, lies, and prior substantiated referrals support bypass | Held: Substantial evidence supports §361.5(b)(6) bypass; mother’s challenge forfeited in part and in any event fails on the merits |
| Whether failure to read into the record the factual basis required by §361.5(k) mandates reversal | Court did not state on record the factual findings required by §361.5(k) | Mother forfeited challenge by not contesting applicability below; any omission was harmless because the record implies the findings | Held: Forfeited and harmless; appellate court inferred required findings from the record |
| Whether reunification should have been ordered under §361.5(c)(2) (best interest exception) | Mother asked court to exercise discretion to order services as in Leo’s best interest | Mother bore burden to show reunification would be in Leo’s best interest; she presented no evidence overcoming risk posed by A.F.’s injuries and her history | Held: No abuse of discretion; mother failed to meet burden to show reunification was in Leo’s best interest |
| Whether the juvenile court’s findings should be reviewed for substantial evidence or abuse of discretion | (procedural/standard) Mother implicitly argues findings were unsupported | County argues substantial‑evidence review applies to bypass findings and abuse‑of‑discretion to best‑interest decision | Held: Bypass factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; best‑interest determination reviewed for abuse of discretion; both sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennifer S. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.App.5th 1113 (2017) (describing bypass provisions and when reunification may be withheld)
- In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (2008) (parent bears burden to show reunification is in child’s best interest; review for abuse of discretion)
- In re A.G., 207 Cal.App.4th 276 (2012) (discussing application of §361.5 bypass provisions)
- In re Angelique C., 113 Cal.App.4th 509 (2003) (placing burden on party seeking to avoid reunification services)
- In re S.G., 112 Cal.App.4th 1254 (2003) (court may imply necessary findings when record supports them despite lack of on‑the‑record statement)
- In re Corienna G., 213 Cal.App.3d 73 (1989) (addressing implied findings where statutory express findings were omitted)