Gonzalez v. Santa Clara Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
Decision Date | 23 April 2014 |
Docket Number | H038241 |
Citation | 223 Cal.App.4th 72,167 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Veronica GONZALEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Public Peace and Welfare, § 398.
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Superior Court No. CV204141, The Honorable Mark H. Pierce, Trial Judge. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV204141)
Seth F. Gorman, Law Office of Gradstein & Gorman, Half Moon Bay, for Veronica Gonzalez: Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lori E. Pegg, Acting County Counsel, Harrison D. Taylor, Deputy County Counsel, for Santa Clara County Department of Social Services et al.: Defendants and Respondents.
Appellant Veronica Gonzalez (Mother) was reported for child abuse after she spanked her 12–year old daughter, A.P. (Daughter), using a wooden spoon with enough force to produce visible bruises. The Santa Clara Department of Social Services (Department) concluded that the report was “substantiated,” and submitted it to the state Department of Justice for inclusion in the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Penal Code sections 11164 through 11174.3 (CANRA or Act). Mother unsuccessfully sought relief by administrative appeal and by petition for administrative mandamus in the superior court. On appeal to this court, she contends that neither the Department nor the superior court gave sufficient weight, or any weight, to the right of a parent to impose reasonable discipline on his or her child. We will sustain this contention. We also sustain Mother's contention that the hearing officer committed a palpable and prejudicial abuse of discretion by refusing to permit Daughter to testify, citing the rationale—which flew in the face of the only evidence before him—that she would be traumatized by the experience.
In reaching these conclusions we neither consider nor decide whether spanking is a sound form of discipline. That is a question entrusted not to this court, but to the people's representatives in the Legislature. We hold only that the Legislature has recognized the right of parents to impose reasonable corporate punishment on their children as a legitimate disciplinary measure. If the Legislature wishes to prohibit spanking, or to impose strict liability on parents where otherwise reasonable discipline causes bruising, it is more than competent to do so. Here the record does not show that any consideration whatever was given to the parents' right to impose reasonable discipline on their children or to basic principles of fair procedure. We will therefore reverse the judgment of the superior court with directions to order the Department to either conduct a new hearing or set aside its finding that the report is “substantiated” and to inform the Department of Justice that the report is “unfounded.”
Prior to the events giving rise to this matter, Mother and her husband (Father) had become gravely concerned about Daughter's declining academic performance and alarming social tendencies. As Father put it, Daughter “had decided that she did not have to do her school or home work, repeatedly lied to both of us, [and] started showing interest in gang culture.” 1 Mother declared that Daughter had become “boy crazy and started to mingle with a new type of crowd,” and that they had found pictures and text messages on her mobile phone “in reference to gangs.” They “had many discussions” with Daughter about these developments, but to no avail: Daughter's older sister (Sister) also declared that Daughter's “interest in gangs seemed to be growing.” She “started to become very irresponsible in school by being late to classes, having really bad grades because she was doing hardly any of her school and homework, was lying to my parents about lots of things, and started hanging around wanna-be gangster kids at school.” Daughter herself declared, “I have to admit, for a long time, starting in 6th grade, I was always getting to class late, not doing my school assignments, and lying to my parents.” She acknowledged that milder disciplinary measures had failed to influence her:
Mother described in more detail the failure of these less stringent methods of discipline:
According to the Mother, on each of the first three days of the new regime Daughter came home without having “complet[ed] her tasks.” This resulting in her being spanked by Father “with his hand, only on the buttocks, fully clothed, and in a calm manner.” (Capitalization removed.) When Mother picked Daughter up at school on Thursday, April 29, 2010, she had again failed to comply with her parents' directives. She gave implausible excuses, a further violation of parental orders. Mother called Father Father also declared that the idea of using a spoon had been his, and had arisen from the exigency of his not coming home until “very late that evening.”
Mother declared that upon arriving home, she retrieved a wooden spoon and (Capitalization removed.) Family members declared unanimously that spankings had been a rarity in the family, that they had only been given in response to misbehavior, that they were never given in the heat of anger, and that they were almost always given by Father, and always with an open hand.
On the next day Daughter disclosed to some friends that she had been spanked with a wooden spoon. One of them reported, or “tricked” Daughter into reporting, the matter to school authorities.2 An unnamed “mandated child abuse reporter[ ]”—manifestly a school employee—filled out a “suspected child abuse report.” (Emphasis omitted.) Under “[i]ncident [i]nformation,” the reporter wrote, 3
A social worker from the Department was summoned to the school. Daughter told the social worker that she had “not been getting along” with her mother due to declining grades. As reported by the social worker, Mother had “told [Daughter] if she does not get her planner signed by all her teachers to prove she complete [ sic ] her work or wrote [ sic ] down her assignment she would get hit with a wooden spoon.” 4 Daughter supposedly told the social worker that on the previous day, According to the social worker, Daughter attributed statements to Mother that “she needs to smack her with a spoon so it will hurt more.” Daughter also supposedly reported that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
...of a ‘ "fair" ’ trial means that there must have been ‘a fair administrative hearing.’ " (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 148.) Where student discipline is at issue, the university must comply with its own policies and p......
-
People v. Ricardo P. (In re Ricardo P.)
...not exactly coextensive. Parents can do some things that the state cannot. (See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 86, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 ; cf. In re Dennis M. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 444, 454, 75 Cal.Rptr. 1, 450 P.2d 296.)3 The statutory re......
-
Boermeester v. Carry
...a ‘ "fair trial" ’ means that there must have been ‘a fair administrative hearing.’ " ( Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 96, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 148.) "A challenge to the procedural fairness of the administrative hearing is reviewed de novo......
-
San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. v. Yee, D072894
...547 [" ‘Subvention’ generally means a grant of financial aid or assistance, or a subsidy"]; Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 72, 89, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 [subvention is in essence reimbursement from state funds].)2 Undesignated statutory referenc......
-
Legal documents
...(Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 2021). 3 Veronica Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services et Al. , 223 Cal.App.4th 72 (2014). Declarations are no substitute for live testimony, particularly in a case presenting sharp conflicts between the parties’ versions......
-
Legal Documents
...letter from the union’s vice president. 1.1 Veronica Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services et Al. , 223 Cal.App.4th 72 (2014). Declarations are no substitute for live testimony, particularly in a case presenting sharp conflicts between the parties’ versions of events.......
-
Legal Documents
...letter from the union’s vice president. 2 Veronica Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services et Al. , 223 Cal.App.4th 72 (2014). Declarations are no substitute for live testimony, particularly in a case presenting sharp conflicts between the parties’ versions of events. I......
-
Legal Documents
...letter from the union’s vice president. 1.1 Veronica Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services et Al. , 223 Cal.App.4th 72 (2014). Declarations are no substitute for live testimony, particularly in a case presenting sharp conflicts between the parties’ versions of events.......