San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. B.T.
217 Cal. App. 4th 1492
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mother B.T. voluntarily placed son Nickolas in state care in Mississippi in 2001; in 2006 a Mississippi youth court placed Nickolas in the legal custody/guardianship of his maternal aunt (the W.'s), with B.T. allowed to petition for custody later.
- In 2012, while living with the W.'s in California, Nickolas reported ongoing physical abuse by the W.'s; California child welfare detained him and filed a §300 petition (later amended to §300(b)).
- Mississippi declined to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; California juvenile court sustained the petition and held a contested disposition hearing.
- At pretrial/settlement, parties and the juvenile court proceeded on the theory the case was postpermanency (stemming from Mississippi guardianship), agreed B.T. bore the burden to prove returning Nickolas was in his best interests, and did not invoke §361.2 placement procedures.
- The juvenile court denied placement with B.T., found by clear and convincing evidence that return would be detrimental, selected long‑term foster care as the permanency plan, and set postpermanency review; B.T. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (B.T.) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §361.2 placement at disposition | Court should have applied §361.2 and place child with noncustodial parent unless Agency proves detriment | Case was effectively postpermanency because of Mississippi guardianship; §361/361.2 inapplicable | Court held California proceeding was a new dependency; §361/361.2 applied and the juvenile court erred in treating the matter as postpermanency but this error was not prejudicial |
| Burden of proof for placement | Agency must prove placement with B.T. would be detrimental; B.T. should not have had to prove best interests | Parties agreed at trial B.T. bore burden to show best interests; Agency relied on Mississippi findings | Court ruled juvenile court should have considered §361.2(a) (placing burden on Agency to find detriment), but B.T. forfeited nothing that prevents appellate review; nonetheless substantial evidence supports detriment finding so no reversal |
| Effect of prior out‑of‑state detriment/guardianship (A.A. argument) | Prior Mississippi detriment findings do not automatically bar §361.2 consideration | Relying on In re A.A., a parent previously subject to removal/detriment who did not retain custody is not entitled to §361.2 placement consideration | Court held §361.2(a) applies to a noncustodial parent even if previously subject to a detriment finding; prior findings are relevant but not dispositive—court must evaluate current detriment |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting detriment finding | Record lacks evidence showing placement with B.T. would be detrimental | Evidence of abuse history, child’s consistent statements, mother's ambivalence, husband’s threats, and child’s reluctance support detriment | Court found substantial evidence supports that placement with B.T. would be detrimental to Nickolas’s safety and well‑being |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.A., 203 Cal.App.4th 597 (discussed limits on §361.2 when parent previously removed and custody not restored)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (forfeiture rule and appellate review principles)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (policy behind raising errors in trial court; preservation of issues)
- In re V.F., 157 Cal.App.4th 962 (statutory framework for placement with noncustodial parent under §361.2)
- Tonya M. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 836 (statutory construction and reading dependency scheme as a whole)
- John M., 217 Cal.App.4th 410 (discussion of §361.2 application to noncustodial parents with prior issues)
- In re Sheila B., 19 Cal.App.4th 187 (standard for substantial evidence review)