San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jamie P.
214 Cal. App. 4th 525
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In 2011, the San Diego County Agency filed a 300(b) petition for A.J. and two half siblings, alleging abuse by the stepfather and lack of mother’s protection.
- A.J. was detained and placed at Polinsky; A.J.’s natural father Joshua was initially unknown and later located in Hawaii through child support records.
- Joshua sought placement of A.J.; the court ordered supervised visits and planned a Hawaii placement to assess suitability.
- A.J. visited Hawaii; Hawaii approved Joshua’s home; the Agency recommended placement with Joshua and termination of jurisdiction.
- At a July 27, 2012 disposition, evidence showed Joshua's positive engagement; the court found best interests favored placement with Joshua and termination of jurisdiction pending a custody plan.
- On September 20, 2012, the court found Joshua to be A.J.’s presumed father and approved joint custody with Joshua as primary custodian, while terminating jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for termination | Jamie argues 361.2/364 apply, requiring continued supervision if no protective issues. | Joshua contends the court may terminate jurisdiction based on best interests and no protective issue, using inherent authority. | Termination upheld; no protective issue; substantial evidence supported best interests under applicable standards. |
| ICPC relevance to termination | Jamie asserts ICPC concerns pressured termination to avoid interstate issues. | Joshua and Agency argue ICPC was not a controlling factor and there was no ICPC obstacle to termination. | ICPC concerns were speculative; record supports termination independent of ICPC. |
| Need for explicit finding no continuing supervision | Jamie asserts lack of explicit language requires reversal. | Court’s findings and substantial evidence show no need for ongoing supervision; wording was not fatal. | Harmless error; termination proper despite not using exact statutory phrasing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993) (presumed father entitled to immediate custody; affects §361.2 applicability)
- In re Janet T., 93 Cal.App.4th 377 (Cal. App. 2001) (dependency jurisdiction requires evidence of substantial risk of harm)
- In re Janee W., 140 Cal.App.4th 1444 (Cal. App. 2006) (harmless use of §364 language when no continuing protection needed)
- In re C.B., 188 Cal.App.4th 1024 (Cal. App. 2010) (ICPC considerations and out-of-state placement with parent)
- Bridget A. v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.4th 285 (Cal. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard; substantial evidence review for termination)