R.U. v. Superior Court CA5, F089512

The Fresno County Department of Social Services initiated dependency proceedings regarding R.U.’s (father’s) two young daughters after their mother was hospitalized for intoxication and subsequently tested positive for drugs; the children were initially placed in foster care.
The children's father, R.U., was incarcerated for seven years following conviction for assault with a firearm, discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, and false imprisonment after firing a gun into the mother’s apartment (where the children were present), resulting in a protective order barring him from contact with the children.
Mother was initially a party to reunification proceedings but was killed during the case, leaving the children without her care or support.
Father sought to have the children placed with his parents (paternal grandparents) while he was incarcerated, arguing he could make an appropriate plan of care.
The juvenile court declined to place the children with paternal grandparents, citing concerns about their capacity to keep the children safe, their responses minimizing father's dangerous conduct, and the children’s discomfort with them during visits.
Father challenged the court’s jurisdictional findings, the amendment of the petition to conform to proof at trial, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting jurisdiction, seeking to dismiss the case and block the scheduling of a permanency (section 366.26) hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction (post-mother’s death)	Father argued no basis for jurisdiction once mother died and he could make plan of care	Department argued grounds under § 300(g) as neither parent could provide care—father due to incarceration/protective order	Petition properly alleged that children were left without support; jurisdiction under § 300(g) affirmed
Whether the court erred in amending the petition (count g-1) to add facts about father’s dangerous conduct	Amendment raised new factual/legal theories not in petition, prejudicing father	Amendment simply clarified existing basis—why father could not arrange for care	Amendment did not violate due process; was within court’s discretion
Whether findings of jurisdiction lacked substantial evidence	Father could arrange support via grandparents; protective order did not prevent this	Evidence showed protective order precluded actual arrangement; grandparents not suitable	Substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under § 300(g)
Whether dependency court’s refusal to place children with paternal grandparents was proper	Father argued they were an appropriate plan and could comply with order	Agency argued grandparents did not appreciate risk, minimized father’s actions, children lacked bond	Court found placement detrimental and not in children’s best interest

In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2013) (standard on review of dependency findings and role of substantial evidence)
In re S.A., 182 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (defining substantial evidence in dependency context)
In re Eric H., 54 Cal.App.4th 955 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (motions testing sufficiency of agency’s evidence in dependency)
In re S.D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (incarceration, without more, does not justify jurisdiction)
In re Monica C., 31 Cal.App.4th 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (incarcerated parent’s duty to arrange care for child)
In re Jessica C., 93 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (amendment of petition to conform to proof in dependency proceedings)