Saraswati v. County of San Diego
202 Cal. App. 4th 917
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Saraswati challenged the County’s inconclusive finding regarding abuse allegations in a 2006 custody dispute over his child.
- The social worker concluded the allegations were inconclusive and forwarded the report to the CACI under CANRA.
- A 2008 grievance hearing reviewed evidence and testimony; therapists, counsel and state actors testified.
- The County upheld the inconclusive finding in January 2009, and Saraswati filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus.
- The trial court applied substantial evidence review; Saraswati argued for independent judgment and due process concerns.
- The court remanded to apply the correct independent-judgment standard and noted possible future mootness under CANRA amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether independent judgment review should apply | Saraswati: independent review required for privacy rights impact | County: substantial evidence review suffices | Remand to apply independent-judgment standard |
| Whether substantial evidence supported inconclusive finding | Saraswati: evidence insufficient to sustain inconclusive | County: evidence sufficient for inconclusive | Remand for proper standard; not resolved on this record |
| Whether CANRA amendment mooted the case | Amendment pending timing; relief possible earlier | Amendment moots disputes already resolved | Not moot at time of decision; remand preserved relief possibilities |
| Whether due process procedures were properly applied | Deposition testimony on standard-of-proof not in record; due process claims | Record silent on standard; official duty presumed proper | Not resolved; issues preserved for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971) (fundamental rights and independent judgment review framework)
- Wences v. City of Los Angeles, 177 Cal.App.4th 305 (Cal. App. 2009) (independent review for fundamental vested rights when affected by administrative decisions)
- Burt v. County of Orange, 120 Cal.App.4th 273 (Cal. App. 2004) (privacy rights implicated in CACI listings; due process analysis context)
- Milligan v. Hearing Aid Dispensers Examining Com’n, 142 Cal.App.3d 1002 (Cal. App. 1983) (presumption that proper standard applied when record silent on standard of proof)
- Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle, 83 Cal.App.4th 74 (Cal. App. 2000) (extra-record evidence admissibility in administrative mandamus)