In re R.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B256411
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 4/2/15
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK03719)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LISA E., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
* * * * * *
A “rebellious” and “incorrigible” teen repeatedly runs away from home, placing herself and her infant daughter at “substantial risk [of] . . . serious physical harm.” (
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Lisa E. (mother) gave birth to R.T. in 1996. When R.T. was 14, she began running away from home for days at a time, not attending school, falsely
The Department filed a petition to declare then-17-year-old R.T. a dependent of the juvenile court on the ground that she faced “a substantial risk [of] . . . serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of [mother] to adequately supervise or protect” her. (
Mother timely appeals.2
DISCUSSION
Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in asserting dependency jurisdiction over R.T. (and, by extension, erred in making its dispositional order premised on that jurisdiction) because (1) the first clause of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), as interpreted in Precious D., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, requires proof that the parent‘s inability to supervise or protect her child stems from being “unfit or neglectful” (id. at p. 1254; see also In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135, quoting In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820), and (2) there was insufficient evidence that she was unfit or neglectful because she did her best to control R.T.
who repeatedly endangered herself by running away from home, and a mother who “tried everything” to no avail. (Precious D., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1257.) Thus, the mother in Precious D. was in no way neglectful, but was “unfit” insofar as she was unable to supervise or protect her daughter. Thus, by “unfit,” the Precious D. court was looking not only to the reason for the parent‘s unfitness, but also for some proof that the parent be blameworthy or otherwise at fault. (Id. at p. 1259 [concluding there was no basis to be “critical of Mother‘s parenting skills or conduct“].)
Like the mother in Precious D., mother in this case was neither neglectful nor blameworthy in being unable to supervise or protect her daughter. The Department argues that mother “abdicated” her parental role by placing R.T. with her grandparents and by declining the Department‘s invitation to voluntarily consent to jurisdiction. But mother‘s decision to put R.T. with her more experienced grandparents—the very same placement the Department later made—was not neglectful or blameworthy. Her decision not to voluntarily accede to jurisdiction was also not evidence of neglect or culpability.
Because there was no neglect or blameworthy conduct, and because it is undisputed that R.T‘s behavior placed her at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness, the propriety of the juvenile court‘s assertion of dependency jurisdiction turns on a single question: Must a parent be somehow to blame for her “failure or inability” to adequately supervise or protect her child, when that inability creates a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness, before a juvenile court may assert dependency jurisdiction pursuant to the first clause of section 300, subdivision (b)(1)?
This is a question of statutory interpretation we review de novo. (Nguyen v. Western Digital Corp. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1543.) Our review is informed, but not controlled, by the decision of our sister Court of Appeal on this question. (The MEGA Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1529.)
I. Statutory construction
In answering the question presented by this case, we start with the statutory language. (Riverside County Sheriff‘s Dept. v. Stiglitz (2014) 60 Cal.4th 624, 630 (Stiglitz).) The first clause of section
We must interpret this silence in the manner most consonant with the legislative intent behind this provision. (Stiglitz, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 630.) Two indicia—one implicit and one explicit—point to the conclusion that this clause of section 300, subdivision (b)(1) has no culpability requirement.
The language we are interpreting is just one of many provisions setting forth various grounds for dependency jurisdiction. Some of these provisions require a showing that the parent acted intentionally. (See
This inference becomes compelling when read in conjunction with the Legislature‘s explicit declaration that dependency jurisdiction is to be read broadly: “[T]he purpose of the provisions of this chapter relating to dependent children is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.” (
Construing the first clause of section 300, subdivision (b)(1) to require a showing of parental fault, as mother urges, not only ignores these indicia of legislative intent, but also tasks the judiciary with drawing lines better drawn by the Legislature. Mother argues that her inability to supervise or protect R.T. is not blameworthy, but that a parent‘s inability to supervise or protect a younger child might be. “At some point,” mother reasons, “the order of human growth and development” shifts the blame from parent to child. If we were to recognize a culpability element, we would have to fix that point. But where would we place it, and what criteria would we use in doing so? This blameworthiness line, if it is to be drawn at all, is a policy decision within the special competence of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
When read in light of these considerations, the text and purpose of the first clause of section 300, subdivision (b)(1) point to the conclusion that a showing of parental blame is not required.5
II. Countervailing arguments
Mother offers two arguments that, in her view, compel us to reject the statutory analysis set forth above.
Mother asserts that the interpretation of the first clause of section 300, subdivision (b)(1) is governed by a different and weightier canon of statutory construction—namely, the “cardinal” rule that a statute should, where possible, be construed in a manner that avoids doubts about its constitutionality. (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1373.) This canon was the basis for Precious D.‘s ruling. (Precious D., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1260-1261.)
Natural parents have a “fundamental liberty interest . . . in the care, custody, and management of their child[ren].” (Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 753 (Santosky).) Consequently, due process guarantees that the state may not terminate a
parent‘s rights with respect to her child without first making (1) a showing of parental unfitness, (2) by clear and convincing evidence. (Id. at pp. 747-748, 758, 760, fn. 10; Guardianship of Ann S. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1110, 1130 (Ann S.); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 (Cynthia D.).) Precious D. reasoned that the assertion of dependency jurisdiction based on parent‘s blameless inability to control her daughter made it possible for that parent‘s right over that child to be terminated without any finding of parental unfitness. (Precious D., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1260-1261.) We are unpersuaded by this argument for two reasons.
First, this argument conflates parental “unfitness” with parental culpability. But they are not the same. “Unfitness” is concerned whether a parent is able to protect the welfare of her child; culpability is concerned with why. As noted above, unfitness can stem from a parent‘s willful acts, her negligence, or acts entirely beyond her control and for which she is not culpable (such as suffering from a developmental disability). The decisions governing the constitutional constraints on the termination of parental rights define “unfitness” with reference to the child‘s welfare, not the culpability of the child‘s parents. (See Santosky, supra, 455 U.S. at p. 766 [noting “state‘s parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child“]; accord, In re Vonda M. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 753, 757 [“the imposition of juvenile dependency jurisdiction must depend upon the welfare of the child, not the fault of or lack of fault of the parents“].) Indeed, if unfitness were synonymous with fault, all of the grounds for dependency jurisdiction having no element of parental blame would be constitutionally suspect. (See
Second, when “unfitness” is properly defined, there is no danger that allowing a juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over a child based on the
“merely a first step” (Ethan C., supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 617) in a multi-step process that may or may not lead to the termination of parental rights (Cynthia D., supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 247-250 [detailing steps]), and due process requires only that a finding of parental unfitness be made “‘at some point in the proceedings . . . before parental rights are terminated‘” (Ann S., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1134, italics omitted; In re Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 51, 66). Under California law, there is no danger that dependency proceedings will reach the stage where parental rights are terminated without a finding of parental unfitness.
The parental rights of mothers and “presumed” fathers not having custody of their children may be terminated only upon a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of their unfitness made at the permanency planning hearing conducted pursuant to section 366.26. (In re T.G. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 [“[A] court may not terminate a nonoffending, noncustodial mother‘s or presumed father‘s parental rights without finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that awarding custody to the parent would be detrimental.“]; Cody W., supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 225 [finding of “detriment” is “‘equivalent [to] a finding of unfitness‘“], citing In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 423; In re G.P. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1193 [same].)
The parental rights of parents having custody of their children, like mother in this case, may also only be terminated at a permanency planning hearing. (
(a) the parent‘s whereabouts are unknown and (b) the parent has not contacted or visited the child for at least six months (
We accordingly conclude there is no constitutional imperative for engrafting a blameworthiness element to the first clause of section 300, subdivision (b)(1).
B. Blurring of delinquency and dependency jurisdiction
Mother next argues that her daughter‘s intransigence is better viewed as an issue of truancy under section 601 that falls under the juvenile court‘s delinquency jurisdiction, rather than an issue of dependency. (See
However, the power to decide which jurisdictional basis to invoke has long resided with the executive branch. To be sure, the courts have a say in choosing which jurisdictional basis—dependency or delinquency—to exert once the executive branch has invoked both. (
no say in which jurisdiction the executive chooses to invoke in the first place. To the contrary, “it rests in the discretion of the executive branch employees—social workers, probation officers, and the district attorney—whether to file such petitions, not the juvenile court.” (D.M., at p. 1127;
For these reasons, we respectfully disagree with the decision in Precious D., and hold instead that no showing of parental blame is required before a juvenile court may assert dependency jurisdiction over a child at substantial risk of physical harm or illness due to her parent‘s “failure or inability . . . to adequately supervise or protect” her. (
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
HOFFSTADT
J.
We concur:
ASHMANN-GERST
Acting P. J.
CHAVEZ
J.