San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. T.B. (In re D.B.)
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 53
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Parents T.B. and L.B. routinely disciplined older son Jordan (age 6) with a belt; Jordan arrived at school with bleeding, multiple linear wounds in various healing stages and a two-inch back scar. Medical opinion: injuries consistent with belt/buckle abuse.
- Parents initially lied about cause; later admitted using belts repeatedly and described corporal punishment as routine. They denied physically disciplining younger son D.B. (age 18 months), who had no injuries and whose visits with parents were positive.
- Jordan was traumatized, refused visits, and exhibited food-hoarding and other signs of neglect/trauma; D.B. showed no developmental concerns in foster care.
- Juvenile court held contested hearings: parents submitted on Jordan’s allegations but contested D.B.’s; court found Jordan had suffered serious physical abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code §300(a)) and sustained jurisdiction over D.B. under §300(j), then removed D.B. under §361(c)(1).
- Parents appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that D.B. faced substantial risk, that the court misapplied §300(j) (including reliance on emotional-abuse considerations not listed in §300(j)), and that less-restrictive in-home measures were available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.B./L.B.) | Defendant's Argument (Agency/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §300(j) jurisdiction over D.B. is supported by evidence of sibling abuse | §300(j) does not permit reliance on emotional-abuse concerns; parents argue D.B. was not at substantial risk given participation in services and no prior harm to D.B. | Court may consider totality of circumstances around sibling abuse (including emotional effects) and statutory factors listed in §300(j); severe sibling abuse lowers required probability of similar harm | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports §300(j) jurisdiction based on severe physical abuse of sibling and probative factors (age, gender, parental condition, emotional effects) |
| Whether emotional-abuse findings can inform §300(j) analysis | Emotional-abuse finding alone is not a valid §300(j) basis | Emotional effects on a sibling are a probative factor under §300(j)’s "any other factors" language | Court used emotional-abuse finding as one probative factor but relied primarily on sibling’s severe physical abuse; decision stands |
| Whether removal under §361(c)(1) was warranted (no reasonable means to protect D.B.) | Parents remedied risk via services, expressed remorse, and an in-home safety plan could protect D.B. | Removal may be based on clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger; toddler is especially vulnerable and parents’ credibility was doubtful despite some progress | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported removal; no reasonable protective measures shown given severity of sibling abuse and credibility concerns |
| Whether appellate standard supports overturning findings | Parents assert record lacks substantial evidence | Agency points to medical findings, parents’ admissions, child trauma, and risk factors (age, nonverbal status, history of repeated beatings) | Affirmed: substantial-evidence standard satisfied; appellate court will not reweigh credibility or inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (2013) (§300(j) permits considering totality of circumstances and treating severe sibling abuse as lowering required probability of harm to sibling)
- In re D.C., 243 Cal.App.4th 41 (2015) (more egregious sibling abuse supports jurisdiction over siblings under §300(j))
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (2005) (standard of review: substantial evidence; appellate court defers to trial court credibility and reasonable inferences)
- In re T.V., 217 Cal.App.4th 126 (2013) (dispositional removal under §361(c)(1) focuses on averting harm and need not await actual injury)
- In re Jasmine G., 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (2000) (contrast case where removal reversed where evidence of current risk was insufficient and child wished to return)
- In re Cole C., 174 Cal.App.4th 900 (2009) (court may consider past parental conduct, current circumstances, and response to services when deciding maintenance in home)