San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. C.G.
207 Cal. App. 4th 94
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- C.G. has a long history of drug abuse and prior CPS involvement, including removal and subsequent reunification failures with Joshua G. and others.
- In 2011, police found drug paraphernalia in C.G.'s home within reach of Lana and Landon, and she refused drug testing.
- Children were taken into protective custody on August 24, 2011; initial meth exposure tests for the children were presumptively positive but not conclusively positive.
- The social worker and court noted C.G. refused voluntary services and was not credible; prior proceedings showed inconsistent engagement with treatment.
- The court assumed jurisdiction under §300(b), placed the children with paternal relatives, and denied reunification services to C.G.; Michael received services.
- The appellate court upheld jurisdiction, dispositional removal, and the denial of reunification services, interpreting the statute to include drug abuse as a problem leading to removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction supported by substantial evidence? | C.G. argues insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction under §300(b). | The court could rely on prior drug history and recent paraphernalia findings to establish substantial risk. | Yes; substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b). |
| Dispositional removal proper? | Removal unnecessary given lack of direct current harm evidence. | Past drug abuse and current paraphernalia in reach of children justify removal to protect welfare. | Removal proper based on risk and past conduct. |
| Denial of reunification services under §361.5(b)(10)-(11) proper? | Because prior petitions alleged non-drug issues, denial cannot rest on drug problems. | Interpretation of 'problems that led to removal' includes drug abuse as a recurrent problem in the family. | Yes; drug abuse qualifies as a problem leading to removal for bypass purposes. |
| Court could order services under §361.5(c) despite bypass? | If bypass applies, services should be denied; court should not order. | Court may order services if clear and convincing evidence shows it would benefit the child. | Court reasonably declined to order services, finding no clear and convincing evidence of benefit. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 2012) (standard for jurisdiction under §300(b))
- In re J.N., 181 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 2010) (substantial evidence review in dependency cases)
- In re Allison J., 190 Cal.App.4th 1106 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 2010) (reunification bypass provisions and best interests)
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2001) (statutory interpretation of §361.5(b) bypass provisions)
- In re Gabriel K., 203 Cal.App.4th 188 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st, 2012) (scope of reunification services; cost/resource considerations)
- In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th, 1998) (reunification standards and by-pass concept)
- Katie V. v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App.4th 586 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 2005) (duty to tailor reunification plans to family needs)
- In re Ana C., 204 Cal.App.4th 1317 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th, 2012) (credibility and court's deference to trial court findings)
- D.B. v. Superior Court, 171 Cal.App.4th 197 (Cal. App. Dist. 3rd, 2009) (resistance to treatment and evidence of future risk)
- In re Joshua M., 66 Cal.App.4th 458 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th, 1998) (legislative purpose of reunification and resource considerations)