Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and terminating her parental rights to her daughter, C.R., born in December 2020. The father was not a party to the appeal. Mother did not challenge the merits of the court’s rulings but argued that the order terminating her parental rights should be conditionally reversed due to deficiencies in the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS) initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California statutes.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Juvenile Court Referee Juan M. Valles, had previously reviewed the case. The court detained C.R. from her parents in January 2021, sustained a section 300 petition, declared C.R. a dependent, and removed her from her parents’ custody. Mother was granted reunification services, which were later terminated in September 2023. The court denied mother’s section 388 petition in September 2024 and terminated her parental rights. Mother filed separate notices of appeal, which were consolidated for purposes of briefing, argument, and decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA did not apply was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that both the Department and the court had previously inquired about the family’s potential Indian ancestry during mother’s dependency case, and maternal grandmother had denied any Indian ancestry. The court concluded that the Department’s inquiry was adequate and that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that ICWA did not apply. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders. View "In re C.R." on Justia Law

The case involves siblings E.G., I.G., and K.G., who were found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to allegations of sexual abuse by their stepfather, Erick C. E.G., aged 11, reported the abuse after a school assembly on safety and boundaries. She disclosed that Erick C. had sexually abused her multiple times since she was six years old. E.G. provided detailed accounts of the abuse to her school counselor, police, and social workers. Despite initially denying the abuse to her mother, E.G. later recanted her allegations, claiming they were dreams influenced by movies her parents watched.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging the children came under the court's jurisdiction due to Erick C.'s sexual abuse of E.G. and the risk it posed to her siblings. The juvenile court ordered the children released to their mother, with Erick C. required to stay away from E.G. During the investigation, E.G. recanted her allegations, influenced by family members who did not believe her and pressured her to change her story.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's findings, noting E.G.'s consistent and detailed reports of abuse to multiple individuals over time. The court determined that E.G.'s recantation lacked credibility due to family pressure and inconsistent reasons for recanting. The court upheld the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and the decision to declare the children dependents of the court, removing them from Erick C. and releasing them to their mother. The appeal by Erick C. was affirmed, and the court terminated jurisdiction with an exit order granting joint physical and legal custody to the parents. View "In re E.G." on Justia Law

A juvenile court in a dependency proceeding granted a restraining order requested by a mother, K.B., against her 17-year-old dependent child, D.B. The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services had received multiple referrals over the years concerning D.B.'s well-being due to alleged abuse and neglect by the mother. D.B. had a history of physical altercations with her mother and was placed in protective custody after her mother refused to allow her back home following an arrest for assault.The Santa Clara County Superior Court assumed jurisdiction over D.B. and declared her a dependent child. The court adopted a case plan that included supervised visitation with the mother. However, D.B. struggled in her placement and exhibited behavioral issues. The mother later requested termination of reunification services, which the court granted with D.B.'s agreement.Subsequently, the mother filed for a restraining order against D.B., citing threats and harassment. The court issued a temporary restraining order and later a one-year restraining order after a hearing. The court found that section 213.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code authorized it to issue restraining orders against a dependent child and determined that it was in D.B.'s best interest to do so.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The appellate court held that section 213.5, subdivision (a), grants the juvenile dependency court authority to issue restraining orders against a dependent child, provided the child's best interest is considered. The court found substantial evidence supporting the restraining order and concluded that it did not violate D.B.'s constitutional rights, as reunification services had already been terminated with D.B.'s consent. View "In re D.B." on Justia Law

Ryan Holman sued the County of Butte, alleging it breached mandatory duties under Government Code section 815.6 related to the evaluation, investigation, and cross-reporting of a child abuse referral against him. Holman claimed the County failed to conduct an in-person investigation or cross-report the abuse allegations, leading to years of abuse and subsequent psychological issues. The County argued its employee exercised discretion in deciding to "evaluate out" the referral without further investigation, thus invoking discretionary immunity.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that the County's employee was exercising discretion protected by immunity when deciding to close the referral without an in-person investigation or cross-reporting. The court found no mandatory duty was breached, and the County was not liable under Government Code section 815.6.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County had a mandatory duty under section 11166, subdivision (j), to cross-report the child abuse referral to law enforcement and other agencies. The court determined that the duty to cross-report is triggered by the receipt of a mandated child abuse report and does not involve discretionary judgment. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether the County breached this mandatory duty by failing to cross-report the referral, thus reversing the summary judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Holman v. County of Butte" on Justia Law

A.L. (Mother) appealed the juvenile court's decision to assume dependency jurisdiction over her one-year-old daughter, Minor, following a single-vehicle drunk driving accident in which Minor suffered a severe brain injury. Mother also contested the court's decision to require monitored visitation. The accident occurred after Mother consumed alcohol at a party and drove at high speeds, resulting in a crash that caused significant injuries to Minor. At the scene, Mother attempted to prevent a bystander from calling for help, fearing her child would be taken away. Both Mother and Minor were transported to medical facilities, where Minor was found to have a brain bleed and required surgery.The San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a petition alleging Minor needed dependency protection. The juvenile court found a prima facie basis for the petition and placed Minor in foster care after her hospital stay. CFS recommended that Minor be placed in the sole custody of her father, S.L. (Father), with no reunification services for Mother. The court continued the jurisdiction and disposition hearing multiple times, during which Mother complied with her case plan, including parenting classes and substance abuse counseling. Despite her progress, CFS maintained that sole custody should be vested with Father, and the matter should be transferred to family court.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the juvenile court's decision to assume dependency jurisdiction under both section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect] and subdivision (e) [severe physical abuse]. The court found substantial evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings, noting the severity of Minor's injuries and Mother's actions at the scene. The court also upheld the monitored visitation requirement, emphasizing the need for continued supervision to ensure Minor's safety. The court concluded that the juvenile court did not err in its rulings. View "In re B.L." on Justia Law

In this juvenile dependency case, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) removed two children from their mother's home due to concerns of neglect. The juvenile court detained the children and ordered family reunification services for both parents, allowing CFS to provide relative visits as appropriate. The children were placed with their paternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother, R.H., frequently interfered with the parents' visitation schedules, leading to conflicts and an altercation at the children's school.The juvenile court found that visits with the maternal grandmother were detrimental to the children's well-being and ordered that she have no further visits. R.H. filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to reinstate her visits, but the court summarily denied the petition, finding no new evidence or changed circumstances and that visits were not in the children's best interest.R.H. appealed, claiming the juvenile court violated her due process rights by acting on an oral motion without following procedural requirements. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, held that grandparents who are not acting in a parental role have no constitutionally protected right to visit dependent children, and thus, R.H.'s due process challenge failed. The court also found that the juvenile court had the authority to modify the visitation order on its own motion and that any procedural error was harmless.The appellate court concluded that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that visits with the maternal grandmother were detrimental to the children's well-being. The orders denying her further visits and summarily denying her section 388 petition were not abuses of discretion. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's orders. View "In re R.M." on Justia Law

A mother (B.D.) sought extraordinary relief from a juvenile court order that terminated her family reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing. The case involved her two children, S.R. and O.R., who were removed from her custody due to allegations of serious physical harm and failure to protect. The mother argued that the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau did not provide reasonable reunification services and that the juvenile court erred in concluding she failed to make substantive progress in her court-ordered treatment plan.The juvenile court found that the mother had not made substantive progress in her treatment plan and terminated reunification services. The court noted that despite the mother's participation in various services, she continued to struggle with parenting skills and judgment, and the children remained at risk. The court also found that the Bureau had provided reasonable services tailored to the mother's special needs, including referrals to parenting classes, counseling, and individual therapy.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the juvenile court's finding that the Bureau had provided reasonable services. However, it found that the juvenile court's conclusion that the mother had not made substantive progress was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court noted that the mother had completed multiple parenting courses, engaged in therapy, and regularly visited her children without resorting to physical discipline.Despite this, the appellate court concluded that the juvenile court's error was harmless. Given the imminent 12-month review hearing and the heightened standards for continuing reunification services, the court found it unlikely that the mother would be able to demonstrate a substantial probability of the children's return to her custody within the extended period. Therefore, the petition for extraordinary relief was denied. View "B.D. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In June 2021, the defendant, K.D., stole a car with a one-year-old child inside. She was arrested shortly after and found with the stolen items. K.D. admitted to taking the car and knowing the child was inside. She was charged with kidnapping, child abduction, and vehicle theft. K.D.'s defense counsel raised doubts about her competency, leading to evaluations that diagnosed her with a moderate intellectual disability. She was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the Porterville Developmental Center for treatment. After being declared competent in August 2022, K.D. requested developmental disability diversion.The Mendocino County Superior Court initially denied K.D.'s request for diversion, citing her lack of ties to the community, her criminal history, and concerns about her ability to comply with diversion requirements. The court also noted that K.D. had never received services from the regional center and had a history of probation violations. Despite acknowledging her developmental disability, the court concluded that her disability was not related to the charged offense and that she would not benefit from diversion.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion by not properly considering the relationship between K.D.'s developmental disability and the charged offense. The appellate court noted that the trial court failed to ensure that the regional center provided a proper report and diversion plan tailored to K.D.'s needs. The appellate court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new diversion eligibility hearing, instructing the trial court to comply with statutory requirements and consider whether K.D. would benefit from diversion. If K.D. satisfactorily completes diversion, the charges should be dismissed; otherwise, her conviction should be reinstated. View "People v. K.D." on Justia Law

A.T. was born in May 2024 and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, as did her mother, M.T. The mother admitted to drug addiction and using methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) was notified, and A.T. was placed with a relative caregiver, Gloria T. The father, W.M., had a history of domestic violence and substance abuse issues, and had previously been involved in dependency proceedings for his other children, Y.M. and J.G.The Superior Court of San Diego County found that A.T. was a dependent child under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and ordered her removal from her mother's custody. The court also found that placing A.T. with her father would be detrimental to her well-being, citing his history of domestic violence, ongoing relationship with the mother, and lack of cooperation with the Agency.The father appealed, arguing that section 361, subdivision (d) should apply, which requires a higher standard of proof for removal, and that there was no clear and convincing evidence to support the finding of detriment. The Agency argued that section 361.2, subdivision (a) applied because the father did not have physical custody of A.T. at the time of disposition and sought to assume custody.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, concluded that section 361.2 applied because the father was the noncustodial parent seeking custody. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding that placing A.T. with the father would be detrimental to her safety and well-being. The court affirmed the juvenile court's dispositional order, maintaining A.T.'s placement with the relative caregiver and granting the father liberal unsupervised visitation. View "In re A.T." on Justia Law

L.H. pled no contest to first-degree murder and was committed to a secure youth treatment facility by the juvenile court. The court set his maximum term of confinement to 25 years to life or until he turns 25, whichever comes first, and applied 734 days of precommitment credits to this term. L.H. appealed, arguing that the court incorrectly applied Welfare and Institutions Code section 875 in setting his maximum term of confinement beyond his 25th birthday and erred in applying his precommitment credits against a theoretical maximum term of 25 years. He also claimed that equal protection principles require his precommitment credits to be applied against a term that does not exceed his 25th birthday.The juvenile court adjudged L.H. a ward of the court and committed him to Briones Youth Academy, Secure Pathway. The court determined that L.H.'s remaining custody time was 22 years and 361 days after applying the precommitment credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the juvenile court correctly applied section 875 in setting the maximum term of confinement. The court interpreted section 875, subdivision (c)(1)(A) as providing a separate cap on the length of a ward’s physical confinement, independent of the maximum term of confinement set by the juvenile court. The court also held that the juvenile court did not err in applying L.H.'s precommitment credits against the maximum term of confinement of 25 years, as required by section 875, subdivision (c)(1)(C). The court found no equal protection violation, as the application of precommitment credits was consistent with the statutory requirements.The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s disposition order. View "In re L.H." on Justia Law