San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. B.H.
196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 718
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Child (age 2) detained after mother arrested for fraud and drug-related child endangerment; home unsafe with methamphetamine paraphernalia. Father was incarcerated with extensive violent and drug-related criminal history and had previously failed to reunify with a half sibling.
- CFS filed a §300 petition alleging mother and father had substance-abuse/failure-to-protect issues; petition amended to add sibling-abuse allegations tied to Father.
- Juvenile court sustained the amended petition, declared the child a dependent, and denied Father reunification services under Welf. & Inst. Code §361.5(b)(10) based on Father’s prior termination of services in the half-sibling case and lack of subsequent reasonable effort to address the problems.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to support jurisdictional findings as to him, and (2) §361.5(b)(10) cannot be applied to a noncustodial parent because the prior sibling removal was not from his physical custody.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: (1) jurisdictional challenge was nonjusticiable because jurisdiction was supported by mother’s conduct; (2) §361.5(b)(10) may apply to noncustodial parents and was properly applied here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CFS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of jurisdictional findings against Father under §300 | Jurisdiction was supported by allegations against parents (including mother); court properly sustained petition | Insufficient evidence that Father’s conduct brought child within §300; court should not sustain findings as to him | Appeal nonjusticiable—jurisdiction valid based on mother’s conduct; finding against one parent is enough to confer jurisdiction on both (affirmed) |
| Applicability of §361.5(b)(10) to noncustodial parent | §361.5(b)(10) may apply to noncustodial parents; bypass is appropriate where prior sibling reunification was terminated and parent didn’t remedy issues | §361.5 and “removal” in §361 apply only to custodial parents; cannot be used to deny services to a noncustodial parent | §361.5(b)(10) applies to noncustodial parents; term “removal” covers the prior dependency removal from that parent regardless of custodial status; denial of services upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (appellate doctrine that a jurisdictional finding as to one parent is sufficient to confer dependency jurisdiction)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (if any alleged basis for jurisdiction is supported, reviewing court may affirm on that basis)
- In re Allison J., 190 Cal.App.4th 1106 (explaining purpose and effect of §361.5(b) bypass provisions)
- In re Adrianna P., 166 Cal.App.4th 44 (holding §361.5, including bypasses, can apply to noncustodial parents)
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 735 (statutory interpretation principles; look to purpose and context)
- In re Briana V., 236 Cal.App.4th 297 (jurisdictional finding against one parent is effective against both)