San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Stacy B.
210 Cal. App. 4th 632
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- K.L., a 17-year-old dependent, lived with her father; mother Stacy and other relatives had previously lived with them but left.
- Agency filed a section 300 petition after discovering father sexually abused K.L. and arranged for others to have intercourse with her; Stacy was alleged to know about the abuse and left K.L. with the father.
- Initial juvenile court orders included reunification services for Stacy and placement of K.L. with a nonrelative relative; later K.L. moved to a licensed foster home.
- K.L. turned 18 in September 2011; she remained in out-of-home care and connected with a regional center placement.
- At the 12-month hearing in January 2012, Stacy argued K.L. was a nonminor dependent and that further findings were unnecessary due to age, but the court proceeded with the review and later terminated Stacy’s reunification services.
- The court ultimately terminated Stacy’s reunification services, granted another permanent plan, and addressed K.L.’s potential status as a nonminor dependent, noting the timing and post-18 framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.L. qualified as a nonminor dependent at the 12-month hearing | Stacy argued K.L. was a nonminor dependent by 12 months. | Agency argued K.L. did not meet criteria (no TILP, no permanent plan) at that time. | K.L. was not a nonminor dependent at the 12-month hearing. |
| Whether a review hearing under 366.21(f) was proper after K.L. turned 18 | Agency contends review and findings can proceed to protect interests. | Stacy contends 18th birthday negates continued review/finding requirements. | The court correctly held a review hearing and made findings despite 18th birthday; could not designate nonminor status at that time. |
| Whether a parent can reunify with a dependent child who has turned 18 | Agency and minor's counsel argue reunification can continue to allow a future relationship. | Stacy contends adults cannot be under parental custody; reunification not possible post-18. | Statutory framework does not permit reunification with a dependent child who has turned 18 because a parent cannot have physical custody of an adult. |
| Whether termination of Stacy's reunification services was proper | Agency asserts insufficient probability of return and that extended services may be appropriate. | Stacy argues the court abused its discretion by terminating services prematurely. | Termination was proper; however, reasoning acknowledged limitations of continuing services beyond 18. |
| What happens if a nonminor dependent later qualifies for status on remand | If nonminor status possible, further services could be warranted. | Remand would require new requests and compliance with Act provisions. | If K.L. qualifies as a nonminor dependent after remand, procedures would follow the Act, including potential extended supports. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gloria J., 188 Cal.App.3d 835 (Cal. App. Dist. 3rd 1987) (age 18 cutoff for dependency jurisdiction relevance)
- In re Holly H., 104 Cal.App.4th 1324 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (pre-Act standards on dismissal when minor reaches 21)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 162 Cal.App.4th 136 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (adult not in parental custody; scope of parental authority after majority)
- In re Marriage of Jensen, 114 Cal.App.4th 587 (Cal. App. 4th 2003) (parens patriae and custody concepts in dependency context)
- Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. App. 2006) (dependency service expectations and continuance principles)
- Diamond Multimedia Systems v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1036 (Cal. 1999) (statutory interpretation; plain language governs)