San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Kevin M.
197 Cal. App. 4th 159
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- April 23, 2010, Kevin drove N.M., then 11, toward school; N.M. feared injury when he began driving away after she reached for her backpack.
- N.M. reported to a social worker that Kevin had repeatedly abused her, including hitting with a broom, iron pipe, and other physical punishment, usually while under the influence of alcohol.
- A social worker observed Kevin’s home as clean and well equipped for N.M.; Kevin initially denied abuse but later admitted some spankings; he refused a safety plan.
- N.M.’s babysitter and PCC medical staff largely discounted abuse, though medical exam showed marks consistent with abuse history; N.M. recanted at times but remained fearful.
- Agency filed a dependency petition under §300(a) on April 27, 2010; N.M. detained and placed in PCC or a foster home; weekly supervised visits with Kevin occurred.
- On October 8, 2010, the petition was amended to strike certain allegations; Kevin agreed to address physical abuse in therapy; jurisdictional hearing proceeded on the amended petition; court sustained the amended §300(a) petition and, at dispositional, declared N.M. a dependent and ordered reunification services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports the §300(a) jurisdiction. | Kevin argues insufficient evidence for jurisdiction. | Agency contends evidence shows past and ongoing abuse risk. | Yes; substantial evidence supports jurisdiction. |
| Whether the petition’s sufficiency was properly challenged or forfeited on appeal. | Kevin challenges petition sufficiency; argues forfeited/settled issues prevent challenges. | Agency argues forfeiture under settlement and waiver; challenge moot if jurisdiction supported. | Forfeiture/settlement bars appellate challenge; sufficiency ultimately upheld. |
| Whether the dispositional removal was proper. | Kevin contends removal not justified; seeks family maintenance or less intrusive plan. | Agency argues removal necessary to prevent ongoing danger; continued risk shown. | Removal supported by substantial danger and lack of safe alternatives; dispositional affirmed. |
| Whether the court should have ordered family maintenance under §360(b) rather than full dependency. | Kevin argues §360(b) option should have been used to keep family together. | Agency urges formal supervision and reunification planning; risk warranted dependency. | No abuse of discretion; dependency proper and formal supervision warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Michael S., 127 Cal.App.3d 348 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (permits jurisdiction based on risk before serious injury)
- In re Diamond H., 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (substantial evidence supports need for protection)
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (removal standard; substantial danger rule; home conditions considered)
- In re S.O., 103 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (petition sufficiency and forfeiture considerations)
- In re Tommy E., 7 Cal.App.4th 1234 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (waiver/submission impacts on reviewing jurisdictional findings)
- People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (Cal. 2000) (no appeal of bargain-terms when defendant accepted benefits)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (Cal. 1993) (standards for removal and protections under dependency law)
- In re Nicole B., 93 Cal.App.3d 874 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (child’s best interests and protective goals in dispositional orders)