Family Law

Recent Dependency Law Cases

DEPENDENCY (current through 7/20/2024)

By:  John Nieman

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

In re B.D., et al

In re B.D., et al
6/28/24, CA 2/3 B327625
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B327625.PDF

Mother appeals jurisdictional findings that her children were at risk because of her opiate abuse. Mother argued that there was insufficient evidence that she had a substance abuse problem and that there was insufficient evidence that it created a substantial risk of harm to her children.

The children were never removed. Mother refused to submit to drug testing absent an order. Her only voluntary test in early July 2022 was positive for opiates.

While not overwhelmed by the evidence that mother was addicted to opioids, in either case the appellate court found insufficient evidence that there was a substantial risk of harm to her children. On literally every visit to the mother’s home, including reports of mother’s behavior at the hospital when she gave birth and elsewhere, she was completely appropriate. Other than the theoretical risk associated with active addiction, there was no evidence whatsoever of risk to mother’s children. The appellate court also rejected an assertion that Welfare and Institutions Code §355.1(a) (presumption of risk where “competent professional evidence” demonstrates parental (or guardian) abuse or neglect) because there was no professional evidence of such. Jurisdictional findings reversed, including subsequent orders.

In re B.H., et al

In re B.H., et al
7/3/24, CA 4/2 E082619
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E082619.PDF

Jurisdiction was sustained on allegations of a failure to protect from exposure to substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues. Of the 6 children subject to the appeal, the court properly sustained jurisdiction as to only the youngest 2, namely B.H. and G.H. That jurisdiction and disposition was related to failure to protect them from the risk posed by their father’s alcohol abuse (twice in short succession driving while intoxicated with both children in the car). The basis for the trial court’s jurisdiction and disposition of the other children (and erroneous jurisdictional findings as to B.H. and G.H.) was based on risk of ongoing exposure to domestic violence and mother’s mental health issues. The appellate court found evidence insufficient as regards to ongoing domestic violence. There were reports of only 2 previous incidents of domestic violence, and mother’s reactions to both were appropriate and decisive. It also did not find that mother suffered from mental health issues and, in any event, there was no evidence of harm or risk of harm to her children as a result.

Since an adequate basis for failure to protect findings was made as to B.H. and G.H., those findings and orders were affirmed. However all of the findings (including those related to B.H. and G.H.) and orders related to risk from domestic violence and mental health issues were reversed.


Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.

Payment