In re S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.B., Defendant and Appellant.
No. E058328
Fourth Dist., Div. Two.
Dec. 20, 2013.
222 Cal. App. 4th 612
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.—The San Bernardino County Children and Family Services Department (CFS) intervened on behalf of 12-year-old S.B. and her half siblings (not involved in this appeal) due to her mother‘s (mother) mental illness and substance abuse, and her father‘s (father) failure to protect. The parents submitted at the jurisdictional hearing. At the dispositional hearing, reunification services were granted to mother, who is not a party to this appeal, but father was denied services pursuant to
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2012, mother of S.B. (and S.B.‘s two half siblings, M.N. and M.M.) was admitted to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center for suicidal ideation as well as bizarre and aggressive behavior. Mother has eight children altogether and a lengthy history of unstable living arrangements, as well as a history of interventions by child welfare services for all of her children. Some of mother‘s children are adults. Each of the three children in mother‘s custody at the time of the current proceedings has a different father.2
On November 13, 2012, CFS filed a dependency petition as to 12-year-old S.B., and her half siblings M.N. and M.M. As to S.B., the petition alleged failure to protect within the meaning of
At the jurisdictional hearing, the parents submitted on the social worker‘s reports. Those reports outlined mother‘s history of using marijuana three times daily and the children‘s statements about chaotic living conditions. Mother admitted she suffered from bipolar disorder but she did not believe she needed medication.
The children reported to the social worker that mother would yell and scream for no reason, hit or push them to the ground or against a wall, and drag S.B. by the hair. They also reported that mother did not fix meals for them regularly, get them to school on time, or take them for regular medical or dental appointments. The social worker described mother as suffering from psychosis, or delusional thinking, as a related symptom of a manic episode of bipolar disorder.
The report also included allegations that father had exposed himself to his stepdaughter A.H. and had previously molested A.H.‘s cousin, M.Z., on separate occasions in 2010. However, these allegations were not substantiated.
At the dispositional hearing, the court heard testimony from father and the social worker. Father denied any inappropriate conduct with A.H. or M.Z. Although he admitted he was required to register as a sex offender, he wanted to reunify with his daughter. The court also accepted a stipulation by all parties that if S.B. were to take the stand, she would testify that she is not afraid of her father, wanted a chance to reunify with him, had lived with him from the time she was two or three years of age until she was nine or 10, enjoyed her visits with him, loved him, and would be happy to live with him one day.
The court removed custody of S.B. from her parents and maintained her in the relative placement. The court found that placement of S.B. with father, the noncustodial parent, would be detrimental. The court granted services to mother, but denied services to father pursuant to
1. Section 361.5, Subdivision (b)(16) Was Properly Applied in Denying Reunification Services to Father.
Father argues it was error to deny him services under
a. Legislative History—CAPTA
For many years, California‘s child welfare policies have been shaped by grants from the federal government under CAPTA, later revised under the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub.L. No. 111–320, §§ 1, 115 (Dec. 20, 2010) 124 Stat. 3459.) To be eligible for grant funds under CAPTA, states are required to adopt certain policies and procedures relating to programs for prevention of child abuse and neglect, and services for families in need under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act (
California receives grants for child abuse or neglect prevention programs. (
b. Legislative History—Section 361.5, Subdivision (b)(16).
c. Legislative History—Adam Walsh Act
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act, or the Act) was a comprehensive federal statutory scheme designed to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims. (Pub.L. No. 109-248 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 587.) Title I of the Act contains the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. (Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 101–155 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 590;
Titles II through VII of the Act provide for Federal Criminal Law Enhancements Needed to Protect Children from Sexual Attacks and Other Violent Crimes (Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 201-216 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 611), Civil Commitment of Dangerous Sex Offenders (Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 301-302 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 617), Immigration Law Reforms to Prevent Sex Offenders from Abusing Children (Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 401-402 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 622), Child Pornography Prevention (Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 501-507 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 623), Grants, Studies, and Programs for Children and Community Safety (Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 601-639 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 631), and the Internet Safety Act (Pub.L. No. 109-248, §§ 701-707 (July 27, 2006) 120 Stat. 647).
Title I, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) contains a comprehensive national system for the registration of sex offenders and offenders against children. (Pub.L. No. 109-248, § 101 et seq. (July 27,
Each jurisdiction was given a time limit to implement the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, with provisions for extensions of time. (
d. Analysis
Father argues that
California has maintained a sex offender registry since 1947. (Stats. 1947, ch. 1124, § 1, p. 2562.) California has not adopted SORNA. (See State of Cal. Sex Offender Management Board, Adam Walsh Act: Statement of Position (2009) <http://www.casomb.org/docs/Adam%20Walsh%20Position%20%Paper.pdf> [as of Dec. 20, 2013].) SORNA‘s changes were designed to make more uniform what had remained a patchwork of federal and 50 individual state registration systems. (Reynolds v. United States (2012) 565 U.S. 466 [181 L.Ed.2d 935, 939, 132 S.Ct. 975].) Even before
The fact that California has not implemented all of the Adam Walsh Act does not mean that SORNA is inapplicable to father. Under SORNA, each “jurisdiction” is required under federal law to maintain a registry. (
SORNA obligates a sex offender to register and keep the registration current in each “jurisdiction” where the offender resides, is an employee, or is a student. (
In Hester, the defendant was convicted in 2006 of sexual abuse in New York, which obligated him to register as a sex offender under New York law, which he did in that year. However, a year later, Hester relocated to Florida where he was arrested on a warrant for violating his New York probation. Subsequently, Hester was indicted in federal court for violating
The circuit court of appeals disagreed, explaining that a jurisdiction‘s failure to fully implement SORNA did not relieve the defendant of the duty to register. (U.S. v. Hester, supra, 589 F.3d at p. 92.) The court observed that compliance with SORNA is not impossible in light of the fact that the states at issue had registration programs, although they had not implemented SORNA. (Id. at p. 93.)
Therefore, SORNA‘s requirements to register and maintain registration are not expressly conditioned on a state‘s implementation of the Act. (U.S. v. Gould, supra, 568 F.3d at p. 464.) A jurisdiction‘s failure to implement SORNA results in a loss of federal funds, but is not an excuse for an offender who has failed to register; the requirement imposed on individuals to register is independent of the requirement imposed on the states to implement the enhanced registration and notification standards of SORNA. (Id. at p. 465.)
The fact that California has not fully implemented SORNA does not mean that father was not required to register under the Adam Walsh Act/SORNA, because SORNA simply requires that sex offenders register in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, is employed, or is a student. (
We recognize that the language of the statute contains an apparent typographical error. (See 3fn. 3.) However, the statute‘s reference to the Adam Walsh Act was intended to comply with CAPTA (
2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Lower Court‘s Finding That Granting Reunification Services to Father Was Not in the Minor‘s Best Interest.
Father argues that no substantial evidence supports the finding that reunification services to him would not be in the minor‘s best interests. He cites to evidence in the record to support his claim, but does not cite any authority. We disagree with his contention.
Other than in cases of voluntary relinquishment, the general rule is that when a dependent child is removed from the parent‘s or guardian‘s physical custody, reunification services must be offered. (
However, even in the specified circumstances, the court may provide reunification services if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification—not reunification services—is in the dependent child‘s best interests. (
We review an order denying reunification services by determining if substantial evidence supports it. (R.T. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 908, 914 [136 Cal.Rptr.3d 309].) In doing so, we resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the juvenile court‘s finding. (Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 600 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 679].)
Father cites efforts he has made on his own to improve his parenting ability, evidence of his relationship with the minor, and her desire to maintain a relationship with him, as evidence that reunification would be in her best interests. We acknowledge those matters. However, the determination that reunification would be in the minor‘s best interests is not simply a matter of whether a parent engages in parenting classes and counseling, or whether the child wants to live with him.
Father testified that the sexual offense for which he was convicted was committed during a period of time when he had relapsed and was abusing methamphetamine. He did not know what triggered his relapse. Although he had participated in 10 therapy sessions, only three of them had addressed the sexual abuse case, and his therapist had not helped father gain insight as to why he may have committed the sexual abuse. The fact father did not know why he had relapsed with drugs caused the social worker to be concerned for his continued sobriety, since his drug use was a problem of long standing. Given that he attributed his commission of the sex offense to his drug relapse, this was a reasonable concern.
In denying father services, the court cited the fact father had a substantial history of substance abuse since he was 13 years of age, and its concern that there are still unresolved issues regarding father‘s substance abuse because father did not know why he relapsed. The court also noted father‘s extensive criminal history, which included drug convictions and assault with a deadly weapon, in addition to his history of sexual abuse which required him to be registered as a sex offender. The court mentioned the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse involving the two other girls, who were 13 and 15 years of age, which raised concern because the minor was almost 13. Finally, the
Whether or not the court improperly relied on the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse relating to his former stepdaughter and her cousin does not compel a reversal. Disregarding that finding, there is still clear and convincing evidence to support the court‘s finding that it was not in the minor‘s best interests for father to receive services. His criminal record is substantial and his history of drug abuse is extensive. Further, he lacked insight into the factors contributing to his drug use, criminal activity, or sexual abuse. He had custody of the minor at the time he relapsed in 2010 and left the minor for two weeks during the period in which he committed the sexual abuse.
Father did not carry his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that reunification would be in the minor‘s best interests. (
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Hollenhorst, J., and Codrington, J., concurred.