222 Cal. App. 4th 612
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- 12-year-old S.B. was detained after CFS intervened for concerns about mother’s mental illness and substance abuse and father’s failure to protect; children placed with maternal grandmother.
- Petition alleged mother’s bipolar disorder, daily marijuana use, neglect, and physical aggression; father had custody previously but had a 2010 conviction for lewd acts with a minor and is a registered sex offender.
- At disposition the juvenile court removed S.B. from parental custody, found placement with father would be detrimental, granted mother reunification services, and denied father reunification services under Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.5(b)(16).
- The court’s statutory basis referenced parents required to register under the Adam Walsh Act/SORNA as a class for whom reunification services may be bypassed to comply with CAPTA.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) § 361.5(b)(16) does not apply because he was not required to register under federal law, and (2) insufficient evidence supported the court’s conclusion that reunification services were not in the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CFS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 361.5(b)(16) applies when California has not fully implemented SORNA | § 361.5(b)(16) validly adopts CAPTA’s requirement to exclude parents required to register under the Adam Walsh Act; father is required to register under SORNA regardless of state implementation | § 361.5(b)(16) is inapplicable because father was not required to register under federal law absent a court-ordered federal registration obligation at his sentencing | Court: § 361.5(b)(16) applies; SORNA imposes an individual duty to register independent of full state implementation, so father is covered |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of reunification services | The court relied on father’s extensive criminal and substance-abuse history, lack of insight into causes of relapse/sexual offense, and risk factors for the child | Father pointed to his sobriety periods, therapy, strong bond with the child, and the child’s desire to reunify | Court: Substantial evidence supports denial; father failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that reunification would be in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hester, 589 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2009) (a jurisdiction’s failure to implement SORNA does not excuse an offender’s duty to register)
- United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes state duty to implement SORNA from individual duty to register)
- United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009) (individual registration obligations under SORNA are independent of state implementation)
- United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2008) (SORNA registration obligations analyzed across jurisdictions)
- In re Alva, 33 Cal.4th 254 (2004) (California’s sex offender registration history and interaction with federal schemes)
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (2012) (general rule that reunification services are required unless statutory bypass applies)