San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jesse H.
205 Cal. App. 4th 92
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Kaylee H. (born Dec 2010) was placed with her paternal great-uncle Craig D. with parents’ consent for guardianship proceedings in probate court.
- Probate court granted Craig temporary guardian and referred the matter to the Agency to investigate dependency under Probate Code §1513.
- Agency recommended permanent probate guardianship; juvenile court directed the Agency to file a Welfare and Institutions Code §300 petition.
- Agency filed §300, subdivision (b) petition alleging parental methamphetamine use and Kaylee’s placement with a potential guardian.
- Juvenile court denied a demurrer, found prima facie that Kaylee fell within §300, dismissed the probate guardianship, and removed Kaylee from parental custody.
- Disposition: hearing held, juvenile court sustained §300 petition and placed Kaylee with Craig’s family under reunification services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court properly ordered the §300 petition | Jesse argues the court erred ordering a §300 petition. | Agency/minor’s counsel contend the court acted within its §331 review authority. | Yes; court abused by ordering the petition without necessity to protect Kaylee. |
| Whether the §300 petition was facially sufficient | Jesse contends the petition lacked substantial grounds under §300(b). | Agency asserts allegations show risk of harm if in parents’ care. | No; petition failed to plead current risk in Kaylee’s current custody arrangement. |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by not assessing necessity of §300 petition to protect Kaylee | Jesse argues guardian custody sufficed; juvenile court should defer to guardianship. | juvenile court treated guardianship as insufficient protection and misused §331. | Yes; court should have considered protection in light of guardianship instead of forced §300 filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (2009) (guardianship can suffice to protect a child without juvenile court intervention)
- In re Alexandria M., 156 Cal.App.4th 1088 (2007) (juvenile court review is limited to protecting abused/neglected children)
- In re Lisa R., 13 Cal.3d 636 (1975) (juvenile court authority and best interests considerations)
- Myah M., 201 Cal.App.4th 1518 (2011) (dependency referral not mandatory where probate guardianship is established by agreement)
- In re M.C., 199 Cal.App.4th 784 (2011) (section 331 independent review; agency’s expertise considered)
- Christian G., 195 Cal.App.4th 581 (2011) (referral to social services for dependency investigation; guardian’s role)