San Francisco Human Services Agency v. Felicia C.
199 Cal. App. 4th 784
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- M.C., a Guatemala-born minor, ran away at 16 to San Francisco to escape alleged abuse; he was homeless and placed in shelters while the Agency investigated for dependency.
- The Agency declined to file a dependency petition after investigation, leaving M.C. potentially in informal supervision.
- Legal Services for Children submitted a section 329 application to commence dependency proceedings; the Agency declined to file.
- LSC and M.C.’s counsel sought review under section 331; the juvenile court ordered the Agency to file a dependency petition and take M.C. into protective custody.
- The court subsequently declared M.C. a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, leading to a foster care placement and reunification planning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §331 violates separation of powers by compelling the Agency to file a petition | Agency: §331 encroaches on executive power by forcing petition filing | M.C./court: §331 provides legitimate judicial review of the agency’s decision | §331 does not violate separation of powers; court may order filing. |
| Whether the statute's meaning of 'commence juvenile court proceedings' requires filing a petition | Agency: 'commence proceedings' may mean something less than filing | Court: plain language requires petition filing | 'Commence juvenile court proceedings' means filing a dependency petition. |
| Whether the October 7, 2009 order is reviewable on appeal | Agency: order was an improper exercise of jurisdiction | Appellate review should consider separation-of-powers issues | Order subject to review in the dispositional appeal; mootness concerns limited the scope of review. |
| Whether the court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Juvenile Law framework or erred in jurisdictional/dispositional findings | Agency: jurisdictional and dispositional findings lack support | M.C.: findings supported by substantial evidence | Court findings affirmed; jurisdiction and disposition sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (1996) (dependency proceedings governed by Welfare & Institutions Code; court has proper role in dependency)
- In re Danielle W., 207 Cal.App.3d 1227 (1989) (agency and court roles; hybrid executive/judicial functions in dependency cases)
- Alliance for Children’s Rights v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services, 95 Cal.App.4th 1129 (2002) (review of agency waivers within court supervision does not violate separation of powers)
- Z.C. (In re Z.C.), 178 Cal.App.4th 1271 (2009) (court authority to determine best interests and guardian/ward issues; separation of powers discussed)
- Allen M. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.App.4th 1069 (1992) (section 331 as exception to social worker’s discretion; court may review)
- Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles, 222 Cal.App.3d 869 (1990) (analogy for prosecutorial/agency balance in dependency-like decisions)
- In re Ramon M., 178 Cal.App.4th 665 (2009) (dependency proceedings framework and juvenile court jurisdiction)
- In re Ashley M., 114 Cal.App.4th 1 (2003) (agency designation of social workers; separation of powers discussed; hybrid agency role)
- In re M.C. v. Superior Court, Not applicable (case at hand) (2009) (primary issue analyzed here regarding §331 and separation of powers)