Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Child, Family & Adult Servs. v. F.C. (In re D.D.)
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 420
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Mother F.C. had four dependent children (ages 16, 14, 12, 5). Earlier section 300 petitions alleged corporal punishment and child abuse; mother had a criminal history and the Department had prior referrals.
- Mother pleaded no contest to child abuse for one prior incident; children were removed, services ordered, and reunification services provided.
- Children were returned to mother in May 2017 but soon after multiple emergency referrals alleged further abusive discipline (chili peppers/juice, soap in a child’s mouth, grabbing a child during disputes); mother denied Department access and terminated/attempted to transfer services, leaving the children without WRAP services for months.
- The Department filed section 387 supplemental petitions alleging the prior return was ineffective to protect/rehabilitate the children and sought removal again.
- After contested hearings the juvenile court found the supplemental allegations true, concluded the prior placement was ineffective, found clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger under section 361(c)(1), removed the children, and denied further reunification services; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that prior return was ineffective under §387 | Isolated disciplinary acts and procedural noncompliance (service disputes, access issues) do not show the prior placement was ineffective | Totality of conduct (physical punishments, service termination, refusal of access, escalating family conflict) shows prior placement failed to protect/rehabilitate | Court: Substantial evidence supports finding prior placement ineffective (affirmed) |
| Admissibility/weight of hearsay (text message) | Text lacked foundation; children denied sending it, so it was unreliable | Text was contained in social study and admissible; mother’s own testimony corroborated events | Court: Mother forfeited objection; hearsay admissible in social study and corroborated by mother’s admissions |
| Necessity of removal under §361(c)(1) (clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger and lack of reasonable alternatives) | Less-restrictive alternatives (different providers, unannounced visits) could have sufficed; violations of orders alone insufficient for removal | Parent’s ongoing use of inappropriate physical discipline, refusal to cooperate, service disruption, and prevention of investigations created substantial danger and made alternatives unreasonable | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported removal and finding no reasonable alternatives (affirmed) |
| Reasonable efforts to prevent removal (§361(d)) | Argued court failed to consider other monitoring/service methods | Department provided extensive in-home WRAP and other services; mother’s refusal/termination defeated alternatives | Court: Substantial evidence reasonable efforts were made; alternatives unlikely to succeed given mother’s conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Javier G., 137 Cal.App.4th 453 (discusses bifurcated supplemental petition procedure)
- In re A.O., 185 Cal.App.4th 103 (standard of review and §387 analysis)
- In re T.W., 214 Cal.App.4th 1154 (review standards and application of §361(c)(1) to §387 dispositional hearing)
- In re Jonique W., 26 Cal.App.4th 685 (admissibility of social worker reports at contested hearings)
- In re B.D., 156 Cal.App.4th 975 (corroboration of hearsay by party admissions)
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (court must consider totality of child’s circumstances)
- In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal.4th 398 (parent’s past conduct probative of future risk)
- In re Paul E., 39 Cal.App.4th 996 (procedures when §387 seeks removal)
- People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (preservation of evidentiary objections)