V.R. v. Superior Court CA1/1
A148472
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Infant S.R. (born Aug. 2015) was hospitalized in Nov. 2015 with multiple skeletal fractures of different ages, an avulsion of the ear, elevated liver enzymes (suggestive of blunt abdominal trauma), and bruising.
- Parents gave inconsistent accounts: Mother initially said she cared for the baby continuously and was present for the couch “fall,” then admitted she lied about being present; Father’s explanations were implausible and he denied responsibility. Prior reports indicated Father had been violent with another child.
- Bureau filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(e) alleging severe nonaccidental physical abuse while the child was in parents’ care; the juvenile court sustained the petition and detained S.R.
- At disposition the juvenile court found parents not credible, concluded the injuries were nonaccidental and could have occurred while the child was in the parents’ care, denied reunification services under § 361.5(b)(5) and (b)(6), and refused relative placement due to safety concerns.
- Parents petitioned for extraordinary writ relief challenging jurisdiction under § 300(e), denial of reunification services, and refusal to place S.R. with relatives; the Court of Appeal denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under § 300(e) | Petition insufficiently pleaded because it did not identify a particular perpetrator | Evidence supports alternate medical explanation (OI) for fractures | Substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under § 300(e); petition defects forfeited/harmless; expert testimony excluded OI as explanation and circumstantial evidence supported parental responsibility or knowledge |
| Denial of reunification services (§ 361.5(b)(5), (b)(6)) | Court erred; services could prevent future abuse | Same—services could succeed; parents deny responsibility but argue for services | Denial affirmed: statutory presumption against services applies once § 300(e) satisfied; parents’ refusal to acknowledge abuse and other factors supported clear-and-convincing finding that reunification would not benefit child |
| Relative placement (§ 361.3) | Court failed to consider required placement factors for each relative | Relatives had Bureau approval and sought placement | Court acted within discretion: credible concerns about relatives’ ability to protect child, some relatives were caregivers during injury period and did not accept medical findings, and placement risked physical/emotional harm |
| Failure to identify perpetrator | Mother argued someone else likely abused child (she was sometimes absent) | N/A | Rejected: circumstantial evidence, parents’ inconsistent statements, and medical evidence permitted inference parent(s) abused or knew of abuse; lack of single identified perp does not preclude § 300(e) jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re James C., 104 Cal.App.4th 470 (forfeiture of petition sufficiency claim when not raised below)
- In re Athena P., 103 Cal.App.4th 617 (harmless error where evidence supports jurisdiction despite petition defects)
- In re Sheila B., 19 Cal.App.4th 187 (standard of appellate review for juvenile findings; credibility and evidence not reweighed)
- In re E.H., 108 Cal.App.4th 659 (circumstantial evidence may support § 300(e) jurisdiction without identifiable perpetrator)
- Raymond C. v. Superior Court, 55 Cal.App.4th 159 (statutory presumption limiting reunification services after § 300(e) finding)
- In re A.M., 217 Cal.App.4th 1067 (reunification unlikely when parent refuses to acknowledge abuse)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (abuse of discretion standard for placement decisions)