San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Patrick S.
218 Cal. App. 4th 1254
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Father (Patrick S. II) is the noncustodial parent of 13–14-year-old P.S.; mother (D.S.) was hospitalized for schizophrenia and the Agency detained P.S. in May 2012.
- Father lived in Washington, served in the U.S. Navy, had no criminal or CPS history, paid child support, searched for his son for years, and immediately sought custody when located.
- P.S. had a history of disrupted schooling, social isolation, and a diagnosis of adjustment disorder; he expressed anxiety about moving to his father and initially did not want to live with him.
- The juvenile court allowed unsupervised visitation, the Agency placed P.S. in foster care, and Washington initially denied ICPC approval because father missed procedural steps and had a Hawaii psychosexual-evaluation requirement pending.
- At disposition the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that placement with father would be detrimental to P.S.’s emotional well‑being (though not his physical safety) and denied placement; court ordered reunification services and set review hearings.
- Father appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the detriment finding under Welfare & Institutions Code §361.2(a); the Court of Appeal reversed the detriment finding and remanded for a new dispositional hearing on placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Patrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence by clear and convincing standard supports finding that placement with a fit, noncustodial, out‑of‑state father would be detrimental to the child’s emotional well‑being under §361.2(a) | P.S.’s anxiety, need for therapy, lack of relationship with father/stepmother, father’s deployments, plan to homeschool, and limited local child‑welfare oversight justify detriment finding | P.S.’s anxiety and resistance alone are insufficient; John M. controls; father is fit and willing to obtain services; ICPC or deployments don’t automatically show detriment | Reversed: court erred—record lacks clear-and‑convincing evidence of emotional detriment; remand for new dispositional hearing on placement under §361.2(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re John M., 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 (2006) (placement with competent out‑of‑state parent not denied absent substantial evidence of detriment; ICPC compliance not always required)
- In re Luke M., 107 Cal.App.4th 1412 (2003) (detriment finding under §361.2(a) requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Austin P., 118 Cal.App.4th 1124 (2004) (legislative preference for placement with noncustodial parent when safe)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (2004) (juvenile court’s limited authority over out‑of‑state placements and monitoring)
- In re Roger S., 19 Cal.3d 921 (1977) (parental liberty interest in childrearing balanced against state’s duty to protect child welfare)