Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services v. Carrie F.
3 Cal. App. 5th 283
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Eight-year-old A.F. lived with both parents who have long histories of heroin addiction and are on methadone; both parents have mental-health diagnoses (father: bipolar).
- Child Protective Services responded after the mother’s live-in boyfriend was found dead from a probable overdose; the child reported seeing pills and later foam on the boyfriend’s mouth.
- Social workers found the child living in a garage area with trash/beer cans; mother’s liquid methadone and psychiatric meds were observed in an accessible paper bag; mother admitted alcohol use while on methadone and showed signs of intoxication when social workers later located the child.
- A safety plan prohibited unsupervised contact with mother; father agreed but later was found disoriented and noncompliant with medication and the child was located at mother’s home; mother violated the safety plan by taking the child while intoxicated.
- The county filed an amended section 300 petition alleging (b)(1)–(5) grounds: mother’s substance abuse and mental illness, unsecured medications and inadequate shelter, and father’s untreated bipolar disorder and failure to protect.
- The juvenile court found jurisdiction and removed the child from parental custody; mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for jurisdiction and removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether substantial evidence supports juvenile-court jurisdiction under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) based on parents’ substance abuse/mental illness | The county: parents’ substance use/mental-health issues created substantial risk — father’s disorientation and mother’s intoxication, unsecured methadone, and living conditions endangered the child | Mother: her alcohol use with prescribed methadone/meds did not, without more, constitute substance abuse or place the child at risk | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported jurisdiction as to both parents (father’s impairment and mother’s intoxication, unsecured meds, and denial of risk) |
| 2. Whether removal of the child from mother’s custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence under §361(c)(1) | The county: mother’s continued alcohol use while on methadone, intoxication while caring for child, unsecured medications, and denial/ noncompliance showed a substantial danger and inability to protect the child without removal | Mother: less intrusive measures (unannounced visits, testing) could protect the child; her storage/medication practices and bipolar diagnosis alone insufficient for removal | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported removal; less restrictive means inadequate given mother’s denial and ongoing risky behavior |
| 3. Whether mother’s conduct is analogous to lawful medical use cases (e.g., Drake M.) so as to preclude jurisdiction/removal | The county: unlike lawful, controlled medical use, mother combined substances contrary to medical advice, used when child present, and stored meds accessibly | Mother: analogized to Drake M., arguing lawful prescriptions without more shouldn’t justify dependency | Rejected: court distinguished Drake M.; lawful prescriptions in Drake did not involve contraindicated combinations or accessible meds and did not affect care; mother’s conduct was materially different |
| 4. Whether the juvenile court properly considered past conduct as predictive of future risk | The county: past incidents (intoxication, noncompliance, unsafe storage) are evidence of present/future risk | Mother: past events insufficient to predict present danger | Affirmed: court properly relied on past conduct as predictive and considered it in jurisdiction and removal determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Janet T., 93 Cal.App.4th 377 (appellate court 2001) (section 300(b) requires evidence indicating substantial risk of serious physical harm)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (appellate court 1991) (interpretation of substantial risk standard under section 300)
- In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal.4th 398 (Cal. 1994) (past parental failure can be predictive of future risk)
- In re Drake M., 211 Cal.App.4th 754 (appellate court 2012) (medical use of marijuana alone, without evidence of impaired parenting or risk, may not establish dependency)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (appellate court 1996) (standards for removal under §361(c))
- In re Esmeralda B., 11 Cal.App.4th 1036 (appellate court 1992) (parental denial relevant to likelihood of future behavior modification)