Johnny S., In re, H013679
| Decision Date | 01 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. H013679,H013679 |
| Citation | 40 Cal.App.4th 969,47 Cal.Rptr.2d 94 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 64 USLW 2399, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9199, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,903 In re JOHNNY S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YVONNE Q., Defendant and Appellant. In re GENEVA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YVONNE Q., Defendant and Appellant. |
Robert J. Masterson, Deputy District Attorney, for Minor Johnny S.
Catherine C. Czar, Salinas, Under Appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor Geneva R.
Catherine Campbell, Fresno, Under Appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent Juan R.
The mother of Johnny S. and Geneva R. contends that the juvenile court erred in placing the children with their father in Texas without complying with the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) ( Fam.Code, §§ 7901 et seq.). We hold that compliance with the ICPC is not mandatory when a California court places
a child with a parent residing in another state. We therefore affirm the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings, dispositional orders and judgments regarding Johnny S. and Geneva R.
Yvonne Q. (mother) is the mother of seven children, two of whom are involved in this appeal. Her contact with the juvenile court began in 1986, when she was convicted of child endangerment and substance abuse. Her two older children were made dependents of the court in 1987 due to mother's drug usage and neglect of the children. Mother also has a history of psychiatric problems, including hospitalizations and suicide attempts. In late 1993, her child Richard R. was hospitalized and made a dependent of the court because of serious emotional damage. Mother attempted suicide with a knife in October 1994, and police reports of the incident stated that the home was unfit for children.
On or about November 16, 1994, a petition was filed on behalf of Johnny S. (born January 2, 1990), pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). As amended on December 1, 1994, the petition alleged that Johnny had tested positive for cocaine at birth, and that his mother's criminal record reveals convictions for willful child cruelty and failure to report to a work release program and arrests for other offenses. The petition alleged that mother had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations, and that Johnny and three siblings were placed in protective custody in 1993 because his mother took an overdose of codeine pills. The petition alleged that Johnny's three older half-siblings were made dependent children of the court due to the mother's problems, and that Johnny's mother threatened to remove Johnny from the relative with whom he had been left. At the same time, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j), alleging that Johnny's siblings had been abused or neglected, and that there was a substantial risk that Johnny would be abused or neglected. 1
Similar petitions were filed on behalf of Johnny's sister, Geneva R., who was born on June 8, 1988. Geneva's petitions also alleged that she came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d) in that she had been sexually molested during the summer of 1994 by her 13-year-old brother, Richard R. (who admitted he had inappropriately touched her on 2 occasions) and had been molested earlier by her father's cousin. Petitions were also filed on behalf of two other siblings, Matthew A. and Christopher Q., but these cases are not part of this appeal.
The social worker with the Department of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) prepared an initial report in November 1994. At the time of this report, Johnny was living with a second cousin, and Geneva was living with her grandmother. The report recommended removal of Johnny and Geneva from their parents, placement of Johnny with the second cousin who was caring for him, and placement of Geneva with her grandmother. The report stated, however, that their father had expressed a sincere interest in gaining custody of the children.
Later in November 1994, Johnny and Geneva's father, Juan R., and his wife Anna sent a detailed letter to the social worker explaining their commitment to the children. The letter stated that they had been unable to develop a significant relationship with the children due to distance and the mother's hostile attitude. In addition, their family finances precluded regular visits to California. They stated that they both had "good dependable jobs and a home for both Johnny and Geneva with lots of love for them." Although Juan R. had "a past history with alcohol," he had been sober for the last nine On or about February 1, 1995, the social worker received a home study from Texas social services. The Texas report stated that Juan R. and Anna were "interested and willing to have these two children placed in their home." The study confirmed that both Juan R. and his wife had steady employment. They were caring for three children from Anna's prior marriage. Although Juan R. previously had an alcohol problem, he had sought treatment, and intended to continue to work with a support group to remain sober. He had a criminal history in his youth, but no recent criminal history. Both Juan R. and his wife were committed to providing a home for Johnny and Geneva. They were engaged in parent education classes, and had made the necessary arrangements for child care. They were genuinely concerned about the problems that Johnny and Geneva had suffered, and wanted to give the children a stable home life and be "one big happy family."
months, and was willing to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or do whatever was required by the court. They had recently spoken with both children with permission from the children's caretakers. They had also [40 Cal.App.4th 973] contacted a family counselor, and were willing to arrange counseling meetings for Geneva and for the family.
At a settlement conference held on February 2, 1995, the court found that Juan R. was the father of Johnny S. and Geneva R., subject to the filing of a declaration of paternity by Juan R. The declaration was filed on February 9, 1995.
Both jurisdiction and disposition were tried on February 9, 1995. Juan R. and his wife Anna were personally present at the trial. After a minor amendment to the petitions, 2 the court received the social worker's original report, addendum and attachments into evidence, and took judicial notice of "all findings and orders that the law permits me to take judicial notice of regarding both Geneva and Johnny." The court found the allegations of the amended petitions true, and adjudged the children dependents of the court.
Regarding disposition, mother testified that Juan R. had an alcohol problem when she lived with him in Texas. She testified about problems Juan R. had when she had lived with him, and stated that Juan R. had damaged his son, Richard R., and that she was worried that he might not be a good father to Johnny and Geneva. She testified:
After the dispositional evidence, DFCS recommended removal of Johnny and Geneva from their mother and placement with Juan R. at his home in Texas. DFCS recommended that no reunification services be provided to mother, but that she be permitted some visitation. The court adopted these recommendations, and placed the children with their father, with family maintenance services to be provided. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the welfare of the children required that they be taken from their mother, that the father was able and willing to assume their custody, and that placement with the father would not be detrimental. The matter was continued for a six-month review hearing on July 25, 1995.
The parties discussed when the children should go to Texas. During that discussion, the social worker expressed concern regarding whether Texas would provide courtesy supervision, and whether the placement needed to be pursuant to the ICPC. DFCS counsel stated that the ICPC was not applicable to a parental placement. After the discussion, the trial court decided that the children should fly with Juan R. and Anna when they returned to Texas shortly after the hearing.
On or about February 14, 1995, the mother filed a notice of appeal regarding the trial court's orders. The trial court's formal jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders and judgments regarding Johnny and Geneva were signed on February 28, 1995. These materials have been made part of the record on appeal, and we treat mother's notice of
appeal as if it had been filed immediately after the judgments were entered. 3
On appeal, mother contends that the trial court erred in sending Johnny and Geneva to Texas without full compliance with the ICPC. DFCS, father and the children contend that the ICPC does not apply to this case, that the trial court correctly sent the children to Texas with their father without full compliance with the ICPC, and that the trial court's orders and judgments should be affirmed.
Both California and Texas have signed the ICPC and enacted statutes codifying its provisions. (See Cal.Fam.Code, § 7900 et seq.; Vernon's Tex.Code Ann., Human Resources Code, §§ 45.021 et seq.) The purpose of the ICPC is to facilitate cooperation between participating states in the placement and monitoring of dependent children. 4 (Tara S. v. Superior Court (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1837, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 315.) Article 2 defines "placement" as "the arrangement for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tehama Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. L.K. (In re Z.K.)
...281; see also Tara S. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1837–1839, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 315;In re Johnny S. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 969, 977–979, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 94.) The California courts have consistently so held. (In re C.B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1032–1033, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 29......
-
Tehama Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. L.K. (In re Z.K.)
...Cal.Rptr.3d 281; see also Tara S. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1837–1839, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 315; In re Johnny S. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 969, 977–979, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 94.) The California courts have consistently so held. ( In re C.B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1032–1033, 116 ......
-
Tehama Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. L.K. (In re Z.K.)
...Cal.Rptr.3d 281; see also Tara S. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1837–1839, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 315; In re Johnny S. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 969, 977–979, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 94.) The California courts have consistently so held. ( In re C.B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1032–1033, 116 ......
-
Bester v. Lake County Office of Family
...934 F.2d 474 (3rd Cir.1991); Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553, 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002); In re Johnny S. v. Yvonne Q., 40 Cal.App.4th 969, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 94 (1995); State of Florida, Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. L.G., 801 So.2d 1047 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001); Div. of Youth ......