San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Tyrone V.
217 Cal. App. 4th 126
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- T.V. became a dependent of the juvenile court in 2007 due to the mother Heather A.'s drug abuse and domestic violence in the home.
- Tyrone V. had a history of domestic violence and multiple felony spousal-abuse convictions; he admitted methamphetamine use.
- Two years after the initial dependency, the family reunified and Tyrone was awarded physical custody of T.V.; the court terminated jurisdiction.
- In September 2012, HHSA filed a new petition under § 300, subd. (g) alleging Tyrone's incarceration and lack of an adult to care for T.V.
- The September 26, 2012 incident involved Tyrone punching Heather, knocking her down, and stepping on her neck; T.V. was at school that day.
- The petition, amended, alleged that Tyrone placed T.V. at substantial risk of serious physical harm by allowing Heather back into the home despite her drug use and engaging in violent confrontations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of petition under § 300(b) | Tyrone contends the petition lacked facts showing harm or substantial risk. | Tyrone argues only one incident and absence of presence by T.V. negate risk. | Petition adequately alleged substantial risk from ongoing parental violence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for jurisdiction | Past domestic violence and ongoing risk justify jurisdiction under § 300(b). | T.V. was not present and appeared happy; no current risk. | Substantial evidence supports jurisdiction given history and child’s exposure to violence. |
| Dispositional removal from custody | Removal was warranted to avert ongoing harm; no reasonable protection without removal. | Incarcerated parent can arrange care; removal unnecessary. | Removal was supported by substantial risk and lack of feasible protective alternatives. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alysha S., 51 Cal.App.4th 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (pleading need not restate reports; must provide essential facts for jurisdiction)
- In re Jeremy C., 109 Cal.App.3d 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (due process requires notice of specific petition allegations)
- In re Christopher C., 182 Cal.App.4th 73 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (purpose of petition to give parents notice of charges)
- In re Robert P., 61 Cal.App.3d 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (pleading may describe risk through specific parental conduct)
- In re Heather A., 52 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (recurring domestic violence can establish risk to child)
- In re S.O., 103 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (detailed allegations about parental conduct confer notice)
- In re Diamond H., 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (past violence predictor of future behavior; harm averting focus)
- In re Daisy H., 192 Cal.App.4th 713 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (ongoing or likely to continue violence supports jurisdiction)
- In re E.B., 184 Cal.App.4th 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (experience shows domestic violence patterns predict risk)
- In re R.V., 208 Cal.App.4th 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (focus on averting harm to child; past events can be considered)
- In re Hadley B., 148 Cal.App.4th 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (evidence of chronic risk supports removal when necessary)
- In re S.D., 99 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (consider incarceration and care arrangements for protective decisions)
- In re L.Y.L., 101 Cal.App.4th 942 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (dependency focus on current risk and overall welfare)
- In re Casey D., 70 Cal.App.4th 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (general framework for reviewing juvenile orders)