Shasta County Health & Human Services Agency v. K.T.
226 Cal. App. 4th 380
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Fourteen-year-old I.G. was detained after testing positive for THC following a premature birth and amid parental substance abuse; dependency petitions were filed concerning both I.G. and her baby.
- Mother used methamphetamine and alcohol, was often absent, and law enforcement had frequent domestic-disturbance contacts; father was incarcerated long-term and unable to care for I.G.
- I.G. engaged in serious behavioral problems: drug use, truancy, repeated runaways, violent and assaultive conduct toward family, and refusal of group-home placements.
- The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition, found parents made no progress to mitigate causes for removal, and declared I.G. a dependent child.
- Despite those findings and the Agency’s mixed reports about the maternal grandmother’s suitability, the court returned I.G. to mother’s custody and terminated dependency jurisdiction; I.G.’s counsel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could return a dependent child to a home found unsafe and terminate dependency | Returning I.G. and dismissing dependency was improper where court found substantial risk and no parental progress | Agency argued continued supervision was futile given I.G.’s runaway behavior and family support would suffice | Reversed: court abused discretion; may not terminate dependency after finding risk and parental nonprogress |
| Whether statute authorizes terminating jurisdiction when parents haven’t remedied conditions | §390 dismissal in interests of justice requires parent not need treatment; parents here needed treatment | Agency urged dismissal as pragmatic response to intractable minor | Dismissal unavailable given court’s explicit findings of parental failure and continued risk |
| Whether placement with maternal grandmother justified termination of dependency | Alleged maternal grandmother would care for I.G., so dependency could end | Agency had later reported grandmother unsuitable and could not be located | Placement with relative, if viable, requires continued supervision/dependency, not termination; court erred |
| Whether minor’s obstreperousness justifies ending court supervision | Agency: minor’s runaways and refusal of placements make continued jurisdiction ineffective | I.G.: sought to end supervision through conduct; court should not equate obstreperousness with emancipation | Court cannot abdicate protective duties because a dependent is uncooperative; termination invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Christopher I., 106 Cal.App.4th 533 (2003) (juvenile court has equitable duty to protect dependent children)
- In re Rosalinda C., 16 Cal.App.4th 273 (1993) (continuing responsibility to account for welfare of dependent child until permanent stable home is established)
- In re Jose M., 206 Cal.App.3d 1098 (1988) (juvenile court discretion in dispositional orders is reviewable for abuse)
- In re Natasha H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1151 (1996) (terminating dependency because a child is uncooperative/runaway is an abuse of discretion)
- In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (2009) (court does not gain parental control in dependency proceedings over independent parental proceedings)
- In re Santos Y., 92 Cal.App.4th 1274 (2001) (dependency goals: protect child, preserve family when safe, secure stable permanent home)
Disposition: Reversed the orders returning I.G. to mother and terminating dependency; remanded for further proceedings.