Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. R.S.
196 Cal. App. 4th 1069
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- A May 2010 incident led to a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code §300 alleging J.S. was within juvenile court jurisdiction.
- J.S. and his half-sister J.C. were temporarily placed with J.C.’s father; J.S.’s father was later identified as Thomas N., who began frequent contact with the department.
- By mid- to late-2010 the Department varied in its placement recommendations, initially favoring continued supervision and then moving toward custody to Thomas with visitation for R.S.
- In November 2010 the court adopted the Department’s plan granting Thomas custody, reserved visitation for R.S., and terminated juvenile court jurisdiction.
- R.S. appealed contending the court failed to make an express §361.2(c) finding supporting termination of jurisdiction; the court’s error was deemed harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reversible error for failure to make §361.2(c) finding? | RS contends lack of explicit finding requires reversal. | Department argues error is harmless and non-prejudicial. | Harmless error; affirmed despite lack of express finding. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion by terminating jurisdiction? | RS asserts incorrect legal standard and improper termination. | Court properly concluded continued supervision was unnecessary; services available otherwise. | No abuse of discretion; termination appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re V.F., 157 Cal.App.4th 962 (Cal. App. 2007) (limits implied-findings doctrine when express finding required)
- In re Marquis D., 38 Cal.App.4th 1813 (Cal. App. 1995) (express finding requirement and harmless-error analysis)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (harmless-error standard for reversibility)
- Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (Cal. 1941) (concept of jurisdiction and review context)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (excess-of-jurisdiction principles and collateral attack limits)
- In re D.R., 155 Cal.App.4th 480 (Cal. App. 2007) (dependency jurisdiction and continuance concepts)
- In re Robert L., 68 Cal.App.4th 789 (Cal. App. 1998) (dependency focus on harm and services)