San Francisco Human Services Agency v. N.B.
7 Cal. App. 5th 1019
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (N.B.) has a long history of childhood abuse and domestic-violence relationships; she and partners had numerous CPS referrals before 2015.
- In Feb 2014, Carl Jr. (then 6) ingested a methadone pill at maternal grandmother's (Grandmother) home and survived; Agency intervened and implemented safety plans.
- On April 17, 2015, 17-month-old Melody died from acute methadone toxicity after being left overnight at Grandmother’s home; Melody’s half-siblings are Harmony and Carl Jr.
- The Agency filed section 300 petitions for Carl Jr. and Harmony alleging failure to protect, sibling abuse, and that Mother caused another child’s death by neglect; both children were detained with relatives.
- The juvenile court: (1) sustained jurisdictional findings as to Harmony (including that Mother’s neglect caused Melody’s death) and bypassed reunification services for Mother under clear-and-convincing standard; (2) sustained the (f) allegation but found the failure-to-protect allegations regarding Carl Jr. untrue and then declared Carl Jr. a dependent and immediately dismissed his dependency, returning physical custody to his father.
- On appeal the court affirmed most rulings but reversed the dismissal of Carl Jr.’s dependency, holding the court erred in dismissing without the statutorily required findings and remanded for disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court had jurisdiction over Harmony based on Mother’s neglect causing Melody’s death | Mother: insufficient evidence that her neglect caused Melody’s death; findings unsupported | Agency: Mother knew of the risks from prior incident and left Melody at Grandmother’s with accessible methadone | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported finding Mother’s neglect contributed to Melody’s death and court’s jurisdiction over Harmony |
| Whether reunification services to Mother should be bypassed for Harmony | Mother/Harmony: bypass was unsupported and an abuse of discretion; reunification would benefit the child | Agency: Mother needs long-term trauma treatment; reunification unlikely to be in child’s best interest now | Affirmed: no clear-and-convincing evidence that reunification would be in Harmony’s best interest; bypass upheld |
| Whether the juvenile court properly dismissed Carl Jr.’s dependency and returned him to his father without required findings | Carl Jr.: dismissal was improper because statutory findings under §390 (or other authority) were not made; dismissal prevents required supervision/services | Agency/Carl Sr.: dismissal appropriate because father was non-offending custodial parent and law required return; court could dismiss | Reversed: dismissal was error. Court lacked valid statutory basis (§361.2 inapplicable; §390 findings not made); remand for proper dispositional proceedings |
| Whether parties forfeited appellate review by failing to object at trial | Agency/Carl Sr.: argued forfeiture of challenge | Carl Jr.: legal significance of undisputed facts is a question of law not forfeited | Held: no forfeiture; appellate review permitted because legal significance is a question of law and participants were unclear on governing law |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rebecca S., 181 Cal.App.4th 1310 (discusses reviewability of legal issues despite lack of trial objection)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (dependency jurisdiction and appellate considerations)
- In re Corey A., 227 Cal.App.3d 339 (bifurcation of jurisdiction and disposition; court discretion at disposition)
- Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court, 162 Cal.App.4th 1408 (construction of rule 5.695 and relation to §390 dismissal requirements)
- In re Natasha H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1151 (requirements for dismissal under §390)
- In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (considerations on sibling exposure and assessment of relative culpability)