San Benito Health & Human Services Agency v. A.S.
244 Cal. App. 4th 327
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- K.S. was removed from an abusive home at age four and adopted by Andrea S. a year later.
- K.S. has reactive attachment disorder, ADHD, PTSD, and a learning disorder, qualifying for Adoption Assistance Program funds.
- Mother switched K.S. to Medi-Cal for county mental health services; Behavioral Health did not offer RAD treatment.
- K.S. exhibited chronic lying, aggression, theft, enuresis, knife-carrying; there were school and safety incidents including a fractured nose.
- In Dec 2014, mother refused custody after a crisis assessment; K.S. was placed in protective custody; later with aunt in Sacramento.
- Agency filed a 300 petition; jurisdiction and disposition hearings followed; court ultimately kept K.S. in aunt’s placement and ordered reunification services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under 300(c) supported by substantial evidence? | Agency: mother unable to provide appropriate mental health care for K.S. | Mother: plan to relocate and arrange services shows capacity to care. | Substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under 300(c). |
| Denial of dismissal under §390 review standard abuse of discretion? | Agency favored continued court supervision to ensure treatment. | Mother sought dismissal, arguing no need for jurisdiction/ supervision. | Court did not abuse discretion; dismissal denied. |
| Removal under 361(c)(3) proper for severe emotional damage? | No reasonable means to protect K.S.’s mental health without removal. | Mother arranged services; removal may not be necessary if plan suffices. | Removal under 361(c)(3) affirmed. |
| Removal under 361(c)(1) proper or should be stricken? | Agency removal supported by safety concerns and lack of alternatives. | No clear danger justifying removal; emphasis on kin placement. | Removal under (c)(1) stricken; disposition upheld on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (1991) (substantial evidence standard for jurisdiction; defer to juvenile court)
- In re Savannah M., 131 Cal.App.4th 1387 (2005) (risk-based jurisdiction review; presumption in favor of judgment)
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (1996) (standard for jurisdiction; parent incapable of proper care)
- In re Marcus G., 73 Cal.App.4th 1008 (1999) (abuse of discretion in dismissal/388 context)
- In re Amber M., 103 Cal.App.4th 681 (2002) (review of dismissal under section 388/390)
- In re Y.M., 207 Cal.App.4th 892 (2012) (standards for modification/dismissal in dependency cases)
- In re I.W., 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 (2009) (when appellate review questions proof burden)
- In re J.N., 181 Cal.App.4th 1010 (2010) (considerations of parent's demeanor and insight)
- In re A.R., 235 Cal.App.4th 1102 (2015) (emotional damage standard; substantial evidence review)
- In re Eric B., 189 Cal.App.3d 996 (1987) (court’s broad discretion in child welfare matters)