San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Carlos R.
205 Cal. App. 4th 111
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This appeal concerns two minors, Jordan (7) and Nicholas (3), children of Carlos R. and L.R., and the AGENCY’s petition under Welfare and Institutions Code §300(d) alleging risk of sexual abuse due to S.O.’s disclosures against Carlos.
- S.O., the R.'s niece, alleged in 2011 that Carlos sexually abused her; the incidents included grooming, wrestling, touching, and sexual acts.
- Carlos sought to introduce his private polygraph results as evidence, arguing the results showed truthfulness; the court excluded them as not generally accepted under Kelly/Frye.
- The juvenile court held a seven-day jurisdictional hearing; it found Jordan at substantial risk under §300(d) and removed her, while dismissing the petition for Nicholas, who was not found at risk.
- Cross-appellants (the Agency and Nicholas) challenged the court’s dismissal of Nicholas’s petition and sought to have Nicholas found at risk; the court affirmed the dismissal and the risk finding for Jordan.
- The court relied on S.O.’s testimony and other evidence, including Barragan’s social-work assessments, to support the §300(d) finding for Jordan; it found no sufficient basis to find Nicholas at risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of polygraph results under Kelly/Frye | Carlos contends evidence should be admitted | Agency argues polygraph lacks general acceptance | Court reasonably excluded; no abuse of discretion |
| Court reliance on literature vs. live expert testimony | Kelly requires disinterested experts; live testimony needed | Literature shows absence of consensus; time was wasted | Court did not abuse discretion; literature basis permissible |
| Carlos’s due process right to present polygraph evidence | Exclusion violated due process to present defense | Evidence rules permit exclusion of unreliable polygraph evidence | No due process violation; exclusion harmless |
| Substantial evidence supports Jordan’s risk finding; Nicholas’s dismissal affirmed | Jordan’s risk supported by S.O.; Nicholas’s risk should have been found | No substantial evidence Nicholas was at risk; findings supported by record | Jordan at substantial risk; Nicholas not at risk; petition for Nicholas properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (Cal. 1976) (Kelly rule; general acceptance standard for scientific evidence)
- Kathleen W., 190 Cal.App.3d 68 (Cal. App. 1987) (foundational hearing; polygraph admissibility in noncriminal matters)
- People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 (Cal. 1994) (general acceptance analysis; relevance to polygraph admissibility)
- In re Joehnk, 35 Cal.App.4th 1488 (Cal. App. 1995) (disqualification of expert witness in Kelly analysis; relevance to disinterestedness)