San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Christopher T.
212 Cal. App. 4th 139
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hailey T. and Nathan T. were adjudicated dependents under W&I 300(a) and (j); petitions alleged Nathan’s serious physical harm and Hailey’s risk due to sibling abuse; children were detained in out-of-home care.
- Feb 14–16, 2012: Nathan sustained eye injuries; doctors later diagnosed nonaccidental injuries; hospital hold placed; Nathan placed at PCC; Hailey detained as a sibling.
- Feb 21, 2012: Agency filed dependency petitions; Nathan’s petition alleged failure to protect or supervise; Hailey’s alleged substantial risk due to sibling injury.
- March 2, 2012: Hailey and Nathan placed with maternal grandfather; maternal grandmother moved out pending approval; parents began services.
- May 16, 2012: Amended petitions added claims that Nathan was abused and Hailey was at risk; Dr. Davis opined injuries were nonaccidental and Hailey unlikely to have caused them.
- Disposition: juvenile court removed Hailey from parental custody, finding substantial risk with no reasonable alternatives; on appeal, the court reversed Hailey’s removal and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is removal of Hailey supported by substantial evidence with no reasonable alternatives | Hailey faced substantial risk; removal was proper | Hailey’s removal was necessary due to risk and lack of safeguards | No; removal not supported by clear and convincing evidence; alternatives exist |
| Were less drastic alternatives to removal adequately considered | Court failed to explore unannounced visits/public health supervision | Court deemed no alternatives feasible | Yes; court failed to adequately consider less drastic options |
| Did the evidence distinguish Hailey’s risk from Nathan’s abuse to justify removal | Hailey’s risk paralleled Nathan’s abuse | Hailey was not abused and could be protected without removal | Evidence did not show clear and convincing risk to Hailey justifying removal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jasmine G., 82 Cal.App.4th 282 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (removal as last resort when no reasonable protection short of removal)
- In re Henry V., 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (unannounced visits and targeted supervision as alternatives to removal)
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1996) (heightened burden at dispositional removal proceedings; clear and convincing standard)
- In re R.V., 208 Cal.App.4th 837 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2012) (substantial evidence standard with heightened removal standard in review)
- In re Diamond H., 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (jurisdictional findings prima facie evidence; focus on safety in home)
- In re Laura F., 33 Cal.3d 826 (Cal. 1983) (use of past abuse evidence; not alone sufficient for removal)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (clarifies standard and evidentiary approach in dependency cases)