Recent Dependency Cases

DEPENDENCY (current through 06/17/25)
By: John Nieman

The precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Auther’s note is italicized.

In re D.B.
5/28/25, CA 6 H051945
Case Link

A 17-year-old dependent minor appealed issuance of a 1-year restraining order of her made at the request of her mother. At the time of the order’s issuance, the mother was not receiving reunification services. The question on appeal is about whether a Juvenile Court may issue a restraining order to protect a parent from their dependent minor under Welfare & Institutions Code (W&I) §213.5. In this case the minor admitted threatening to bomb her mother’s home. The minor also punched her mother, and allegedly made numerous other threats. The minor opposed issuance of the order on various grounds, and questioned whether the issuance was in her best interest.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that “any person” could be restrained under the statute. The appellate court held that the Juvenile Court was the best and most efficient venue to hear such restraining order requests.

While consideration of a dependent minor’s “best interest” is generally mandated by W&I §202, it is not an explicitly required finding under W&I §213.5. Yet the appellate court found that consideration of the minor’s best interests is required by trial courts when deciding petitions under W&I §213.5. It found substantial evidence supported the trial court’s issuance of the restraining order and conclusion that it was in the minor’s best interest -albeit partly to protect the minor from herself.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s explicit discomfort in issuing an order restraining a dependent minor from a parent, and expressed that such issuance would be a very rare event. Affirmed.

In re A.O.
6/10/25, CA 2/1 B339164
Case Link

Mother exclusively appeals the trial court’s finding that reasonable reunification services were offered to her at the 6-month review hearing. There is a question of appealability of such an finding. Melinda K. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147 says that such a finding is not appealable absent an adverse appealable order (like termination of reunification services). But this appellate court finds such a finding appealable based on, among other things, the decision of In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529 (S.B.). The state Supreme Court in S.B. found that the mother (in that case) could appeal a mere adoptability finding of a W&I 366.26 hearing. Following In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, this appellate court found that a reasonable services finding unsupported by evidence can be detrimental subsequently and therefore is harmful and thus -by itself- remediable on appeal. The Court also cited to the recent (2024) changes to W&I 361.5(a)(4)(A) and 366.22(b)(2)(A) that place increased importance on reasonable services findings during reunification services.

The primary deficit to reasonable services in mother’s eyes was that she did not get any actual visitation. While the appellate court recognized the high importance of visitation to effective reunification services, it found that the record reflected that the social service agency made consistent and progressive steps to effectuate visitation, even though those efforts did not result in actual visitation. Affirmed.

In re Jayden A.
6/13/25, CA 4/2 E084114
Case Link

Previously noncustodial father appeals the trial court’s taking jurisdiction under W&I §300(b) and dispositional orders removing Jayden from him and finding detriment to placement with him. There is some wrangling about raising objections to jurisdictional findings at the trial court during both jurisdiction and dispositional phases. Ultimately the appellate court finds that none of the jurisdictional allegations of risks from mental health and substance abuse are supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the dispositional orders which require clear and convincing evidence (necessarily dependent upon the accuracy of the jurisdictional findings which are made by a mere preponderance) are unsupported. Since the appeal was filed, Jayden was returned to the father with a recommendation to dismiss. Reversed and remanded, basically to make custody orders with father and terminate jurisdiction.