San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. L.T.
214 Cal. App. 4th 1154
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- HHSA petitioned for T.W. as a dependent under §300 (J) in 2009; T.W. initially placed with Timothy after detention in foster care.
- In 2011 Olivia disclosed stepfather Timothy had sexually abused her; §342 petition led to risk findings regarding T.W. in L.T.'s home.
- Section 387 supplemental petition filed; social worker warned Timothy and L.T. about dangers; L.T. repeatedly placed T.W. with Timothy despite orders.
- May 2012 jurisdiction/disposition hearing: court found §387 true, removed T.W. from both parents, placed with a relative, and ordered six more months of services for both parents.
- T.W. appealed claiming insufficient evidence for risk from Timothy and for removal; parents argued 361.5 time limits were exceeded.
- Court affirmed jurisdiction/disposition findings; remanded to determine whether reunification services should continue under current circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of §387 findings | L.T. showed no unsupervised Timothy contact; risk insufficient. | Evidence credibly showed Timothy in home posed risk; prior placement ineffective. | Substantial evidence supports §387 findings and removal. |
| Removal under §361 and reasonable efforts | Removal justified by substantial danger if T.W. remained; less drastic options explored. | Agency considered alternatives; risks warranted removal; social worker credibility upheld. | Removal proper; Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent removal. |
| Reunification service duration under §361.5 | T.W. had already received 31 months of services; limit exceeded. | §361.5 clock runs from disposition when T.W. removed from both parents; prior §361.2 services do not count. | Remand to determine continuation/termination of services under current circumstances; §361.5 clock begins at disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Erika W., 28 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (distinguishes §361.2 vs §361.5 tracks for reunification services)
- In re A.C., 169 Cal.App.4th 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (starts §361.5 clock at disposition when removed from custody)
- In re Pedro Z., 190 Cal.App.4th 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (timing of §361.5 clock and foster care onset governs service duration)
- In re N.M., 108 Cal.App.4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (older §361.5 interpretation; clarified start of services timeline)
- In re A.L., 188 Cal.App.4th 145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (confirms separate tracks for reunification when child removed from both parents)
- In re Joel T., 70 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (placement with parent vs nonparent; affects reunification analysis)
- In re Jesse W., 157 Cal.App.4th 49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (courts may terminate reunification services based on circumstances)
- In re Henry V., 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (high removal standard and burden of proof for dependency petitions)