San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Robert W.
218 Cal. App. 4th 1474
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mary, born March 2008, tested positive for amphetamine at birth and was detained in foster care before placement with Robert.
- In July 2009, the juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and Mother had supervised visitation.
- In December 2010 Robert was arrested for domestic violence after an incident with Mother while Mary was present; in November 2011 he was arrested again.
- In December 2011 the Agency filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code §300(b) alleging Mary was exposed to domestic violence; Mary was detained in out-of-home care.
- At the contested six-month review hearing in October 2012, the social worker initially recommended continued out-of-home placement but later supported placement with Robert; the court continued the matter to allow Mary’s caregiver and counsel to gather information.
- In January 2013 the six-month review concluded with the Agency withdrawing its §388 motion, the court finding a substantial risk of detriment if Mary were returned to either parent, and Mary remaining in out-of-home care with unsupervised visits for Robert only at his home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there error in denying the directed verdict on detriment? | Robert contends §630 applies; lack of substantial evidence. | Agency bears burden under §350; court weighs evidence; Mary counsel needed more time. | No error; §350 governs; court properly weighed evidence. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion by continuance? | Robert argues no good cause. | Mary's counsel needed time to interview Mary and respond. | No abuse; 11-day continuance allowed Mary’s counsel to discharge duties. |
| Was reopening the Agency’s case-in-chief proper? | Agency failed to diligently investigate; reopening protracted trial. | New information about safety warranted reopening. | No palpable abuse; reopening consistent with child welfare interest. |
| Did the evidence support the detriment finding on return to Robert? | Robert improved; detriment not shown. | Despite progress, risk remained due to history of violence and credibility concerns. | Substantial evidence supported the detriment finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hadley B., 148 Cal.App.4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (dependency proceedings not subject to Civil Code absent express provision)
- In re Roberto C., 209 Cal.App.4th 1241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (section 350-like judgment; weigh evidence and credibility in non-jury dependency cases)
- In re Misako R., 2 Cal.App.4th 538 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (standards for reviewing deterrent findings in dependency cases)
- Blanca P. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1738 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (reunification goal; overcomes initial removal problem)
- In re Jason L., 222 Cal.App.3d 1206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (paramount concern for child welfare in dependency proceedings)
- Guadalupe A. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.3d 100 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (trial court should consider all evidence bearing on child’s best interest)
- In re Giovanni F., 184 Cal.App.4th 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (continuance discretion; best interests principle)
- Guardianship of Phillip B., 139 Cal.App.3d 407 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (trial court discretion to allow further evidence)