San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. M.J.
243 Cal. App. 4th 41
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Three adopted children (D.C., Ce.C., F.C.) lived with adoptive parents M.J. and C.C.; Agency alleged C.C. sexually abused 13-year-old D.C. and M.J. failed to protect children.
- D.C. disclosed repeated, violent sexual abuse by C.C.; forensic interview and corroborating family statements supported credibility; Ce.C. reported physical abuse by C.C.; F.C. reported no sexual abuse but behavioral issues.
- C.C. denied allegations, refused to participate fully; M.J. expressed doubt about D.C.'s disclosures and violated a voluntary safety plan by allowing C.C. overnight contact.
- Juvenile court sustained petitions under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(d) (D.C.) and §300(j) (siblings), removed the children from parents, ordered reunification services, and limited C.C.’s educational rights.
- C.C. challenged jurisdiction, case-plan provisions requiring admissions, and educational restrictions; M.J. challenged removal and the court’s ICWA finding (court had found ICWA inapplicable without tribe notice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (M.J./C.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under §300(d)/(j) (sexual abuse of D.C. and risk to siblings) | Evidence (D.C.'s disclosures, forensic interview, Ce.C.'s partial corroboration) supports sexual-abuse finding and risk to siblings | C.C.: inconsistencies, alternative explanations, need for further investigation | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports §300(d) for D.C. and §300(j) for siblings (I.J. reasoning applied) |
| Dispositional removal under §361(c)(1) (removal of Ce.C. and F.C. from M.J.) | M.J. failed to protect D.C., violated safety plan, delayed services; removal necessary to protect children | M.J.: evidence of separation from C.C., participation in services, less-restrictive alternatives exist | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported removal; family-preservation preference noted but removal reasonable here |
| Case-plan provisions requiring C.C. to admit abuse / compelled self-incrimination | Reunification services (including therapy and therapeutic exercises) are reasonable and tailored to eliminate protective issues | C.C.: provisions force admissions and violate Fifth Amendment privilege | Court affirmed: therapeutic admissions are covered by statutory/common-law use immunity in dependency-ordered treatment; inclusion of objectives was not abuse of discretion |
| ICWA notice (whether notice to tribes was required) | Agency relied on prior case finding ICWA inapplicable; argued minors not Indian children | M.J./C.C.: C.C.’s ICWA-020 stated he “is or may be” member/eligible of Cherokee Nation and an Apache tribe, which should have triggered notice | Reversed in part: court erred by finding ICWA inapplicable without tribe notice; vacated ICWA finding and remanded for proper notice and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (discussing §300(j) sibling-risk analysis and standard of review)
- In re B.R., 176 Cal.App.4th 773 (ICWA notice required when adoptive-family statements suggest tribal membership)
- In re M.C.P., 571 A.2d 627 (Vt. 1989) (tribe, not court, determines membership; adoptive parent’s claim can trigger ICWA notice)
- In re Gabriel G., 206 Cal.App.4th 1160 (low threshold to trigger ICWA notice)
- In re Antoinette S., 104 Cal.App.4th 1401 (distinguishing notice trigger from ultimate ICWA applicability)
- In re Jessica B., 207 Cal.App.3d 504 (use immunity for statements made during court-ordered therapy)
- In re Lamonica H., 220 Cal.App.3d 634 (same principle on therapy admissions and immunity)
- In re Candida S., 7 Cal.App.4th 1240 (dependency-ordered therapy does not violate privilege due to use immunity)
- In re R.V., 208 Cal.App.4th 837 (standards for removal and evidence sufficiency)
- In re Hailey T., 212 Cal.App.4th 139 (removal standard and family-preservation bias)
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (court’s discretion in reunification plan; plans must be reasonable)
- In re Briana V., 236 Cal.App.4th 297 (review of reunification-order discretion)
- In re Miguel E., 120 Cal.App.4th 521 (minimal showing to trigger ICWA notice)
- In re Francisco D., 230 Cal.App.4th 73 (distinguished; did not consider adoptive-parent-based ICWA notice)