San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Hugo G.
207 Cal. App. 4th 276
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Petitions filed in Oct 2011 for A.G. and for Erick, Edwin, Brianna; A.G. alleged sexual abuse by Hugo in 2010.
- Amended petitions in Nov 2011 added severe physical abuse allegations against Hugo of the children.
- Children detained; A.G. and Erick in Polinsky; Edwin and Brianna in foster care; visits supervised.
- Detention hearing: voluntary services for Hugo; no contact with A.G.; supervised visits with the others.
- Jan 3, 2012: court sustained amended petitions; disposed children; placed with relative; Martha to receive services; Hugo denied services.
- Court dismissed section 300(j) counts for the boys; clarified A.G. case and extension of remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 361.5(b)(7) justifies denying reunification services | Hugo argues services should be possible to reunify with the boys | Court properly denied services under b(7) because parent not providing services for sibling | Yes, denial proper under b(7) absent best-interest showing |
| Whether 361.5(b)(6) applies to the boys | Argues b(6) applies due to severe sexual abuse | Court found not applicable since j allegations were dismissed | No, b(6) does not apply in the boys' case |
Key Cases Cited
- In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (best interests and likelihood of reunification required when services denied)
- In re Ethan N., 122 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (factors for best interests in reunification decisions)
- In re Maria R., 185 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (parental sexual abuse of one child can indicate risk to others in same home)
- Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (dependency cases; abuse and risk factors supporting denial of reunification)
- In re Austin P., 118 Cal.App.4th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (plain meaning of 361.5(b)(7); unambiguous statutory language)