Review the most recent legal developments in dependency case law. Our talented in-house Writ Team provides an in-depth analysis on In re B.H.
In re B.H. -published 07/03/2024; Fourth Appellate Dist., Div. Two
Docket No. E082619; 103 Cal.App.5th 469
Link to Case: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E082619.PDF
HARM MAY NOT BE PRESUMED FROM A HISTORY OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS OR A HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; NEXUS MUST STILL BE SHOWN.
In August 2023, the agency filed a 300 petition, alleging that all six children came within section 300(b)(l) (failure to protect). At the initial hearing, the court made detention findings, ordered monitored visits, and set a jurisdiction/ disposition hearing in September. In September, the agency asked to continue the jurisdiction hearing. No party formally objected. In October, the agency filed an addendum report, including mother’s statements that she had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and that she had a history of domestic violence with some fathers. In addition, father H. described mother as “very violent,” father M. admitted that he perpetrated domestic violence against mother, and father V. said that he would complete any required services. In mid-October, mother filed a motion to strike and a request for a restraining order against father H. Over multiple hearings ending in December, the court heard testimony from two social workers and mother, ordered an extended visit with father V. and his children, and sustained some counts (e.g., father H.’s history of alcohol abuse, mother’s history of mental health issues, and mother’s history of domestic violence). The court ordered reunification services for mother, father H., and father M. and terminated jurisdiction as to father V.’s children. Mother appealed. Reversed in part and remanded.
On appeal, mother argued that the dependency petitions were deficient, and her due process right to a speedy contested jurisdictional hearing was violated. Generally, an appellant may not raise for the first time on appeal a challenge to the facial sufficiency of dependency petition allegations. Moreover, while due process guarantees apply to dependency proceedings, the record does not demonstrate that the children’s cases were not heard in a reasonably expeditious manner in accordance with relevant authority and mother’s own scheduling requests.
Substantial evidence does not support the jurisdictional findings regarding mother’s history of mental health problems or her history of domestic violence. There is no evidence mother had any mental health condition that limited her ability to care for her children adequately or that father M. knew or should have known about such problems. The juvenile court found no evidence that mother currently suffered from any mental illness, let alone an illness that impaired her ability to care for the children. The family home was described as clean and free of clutter with working utilities, and J.M. and S.M. appeared healthy and reported feeling safe with their mother. Further, while there was evidence of a single incident of domestic violence by father M. against mother, it was committed outside the presence of the children, their marriage ended in 2016, and there was no evidence of ongoing domestic violence between them. Other portions of the record, including father H.’s description of mother as “very violent” and a social worker’s description of mother’s behavior in a video as “verbally aggressive” where the videos themselves were not introduced into evidence, are equally unavailing. Accordingly, these allegations are reversed along with the related dispositional orders. (AMC)