San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. M.G.
7 Cal. App. 5th 886
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2015 San Bernardino CFS detained five children after the mother abandoned them; this appeal concerns three oldest: Ro.R. (b. 2003), J.R. (b. 2005), and M.R. (b. 2006).
- Father R.R. (incarcerated since 2006) is undisputed biological father of J.R. and M.R.; both R.R. and S.H. claim/present as possible/presumed fathers of Ro.R.
- CFS filed dependency petitions alleging abuse/neglect; juvenile court sustained allegations against mother and (as modified) against R.R. and initially asserted jurisdiction over Ro.R., J.R., and M.R.
- The juvenile court designated both R.R. and S.H. as noncustodial presumed fathers of Ro.R., dismissed the dependency petition for Ro.R., awarded sole legal and physical custody to S.H., and set limited supervised visitation for R.R. upon release from prison; J.R. and M.R. were declared dependents and placed with the maternal grandmother.
- On appeal mother and R.R. challenged ICWA noticing and other rulings; R.R. also challenged the court’s jurisdictional finding under Welfare & Institutions Code § 300(g) based on his incarceration, the presumed-father finding for S.H., and the custody/visitation exit orders.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed all orders except it reversed the trial court’s § 300(g) jurisdictional findings as to R.R. (inability to arrange care while incarcerated) but left jurisdiction intact on other bases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(g) jurisdictional finding based on R.R.’s incarceration was supported | CFS: incarceration and R.R.’s inability to provide/care justifies jurisdiction | R.R.: incarceration alone is insufficient; he could arrange care with immediate family and had shown interest/support | Reversed: no substantial evidence R.R. could not arrange care; §300(g) finding unsupported, though jurisdiction remained on other bases |
| Whether S.H. properly designated a presumed father of Ro.R. | CFS/R. (respondent): S.H. had parent-child relationship, received child into home, held child out as son; finding protects child’s stability | R.R.: S.H. was a close friend, not parent; chronology makes him unlikely biological father | Affirmed: substantial evidence S.H. met Family Code §7611(d) and §7612(c) detriment standard to recognize multiple presumed fathers |
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion in exit custody/visitation (award to S.H.; limited R.R. visits) | CFS: award to S.H. serves Ro.R.’s best interests given mother’s instability and R.R.’s long incarceration/limited relationship | R.R.: orders arbitrary; insufficient sibling visitation provision; heavy burden to modify orders later | Affirmed: custody to S.H. and limited supervised visitation not arbitrary or capricious; best-interest factors supported decision |
| Whether ICWA notice requirements were violated (Ro.R., J.R., M.R.) | Mother/R.R.: ICWA notice insufficient; failure requires reversal/remand | CFS: ICWA not triggered for Ro.R. placement with a parent; noticing for J.R./M.R. was initiated and process ongoing | Affirmed: ICWA does not apply to a placement with a parent (so no error as to Ro.R.); challenge re J.R./M.R. premature because ICWA notice process was ongoing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.M., 236 Cal.App.4th 955 (substantial evidence test for jurisdiction)
- In re S.D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (incarceration alone does not trigger §300(g); parent must be unable to arrange care)
- In re Aaron S., 228 Cal.App.3d 202 (§300(g) applies when a parent at hearing cannot make arrangements for child’s care)
- In re Andrew S., 2 Cal.App.5th 536 (burden on agency to show incarcerated parent cannot arrange care)
- In re J.L., 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 (presumed-father analysis centers on familial relationship, not biology)
- In re Donovan L., 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 (Family Code §7612(c) preserves existing parent-child relationships; cannot create a new relationship)
- In re Alexis H., 132 Cal.App.4th 11 (ICWA notice/requirements apply primarily when seeking foster/adoptive placements or termination; not every dependency placement triggers ICWA)
- In re J.B., 178 Cal.App.4th 751 (placement with a parent is not equivalent to removal triggering ICWA notice)