San Francisco Human Services Agency v. Jeremiah J.
190 Cal. App. 4th 1106
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Agency filed a section 300 petition in 2009 alleging mother’s mental health and substance abuse problems and that father, a registered sex offender, could not protect Allison from mother.
- An amended petition added domestic violence allegations; Allison was detained.
- Addendum recommended bypass under §361.5(b)(12) due to father’s robbery convictions and extensive criminal history since 1997, with various other convictions.
- At a contested disposition on February 18, 2010, social worker Rostran-Navarro recommended bypass based on violent history and lack of responsibility acknowledgment.
- The court denied reunification services under §361.5(b)(12), finding substantial danger to Allison and noting father’s serious convictions, lack of insight, and unwillingness to discuss his conduct.
- Father sought rehearing; the trial court declined, and the appellate court affirmed the bypass, recognizing the availability of §361.5(c) to order services if reunification was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §361.5(b)(12) violates substantive due process without a nexus | Father argues no nexus is required | Court properly applies §361.5(b)(12) with §361.5(c) | No due-process violation; statute upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2001) (upholding §361.5(b)(10) against due process challenge; substantial state interests)
- In re Joshua M., 66 Cal.App.4th 458 (Cal. App. 1998) (§361.5(b) facially constitutional; reunification policy focused on best interests)
- Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. App. 1998) (reunification by bypass provisions deemed reasonable to preserve child welfare)
- In re J.H., 158 Cal.App.4th 174 (Cal. App. 2007) (context for due process in dependency proceedings)
- In re William B., 163 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal. App. 2008) (best interests standard and likelihood reunification is possible)
- In re Ashley G., 205 Cal.App.3d 1235 (Cal. App. 1988) (discussed nexus concept in context of other statutes)
- Watson v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. App. 2009) (nexus concept discussed in broader regulatory context)