Nicole B., In re
Decision Date | 07 June 1979 |
Citation | 155 Cal.Rptr. 916,93 Cal.App.3d 874 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In the Matter of NICOLE LORENA B., a Minor. Civ. 18513. |
Leif F. Tessem, San Diego, for appellant.
Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Peter G. Lehman and George J. Du Borg, Deputy Dist. Attys., for respondent.
Sandra Morris, San Diego, for minor.
Nicole Lorena B. was declared a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), 1 and placed in the home of her mother under the supervision of the Director of the San Diego County Department of Welfare. The mother appeals this order. The only issue is whether the facts stipulated to by all the parties are sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the court's assuming jurisdiction.
The stipulated facts are brief and are restated here in full:
As it applies to this proceeding, section 300 reads:
(Stats.1976, ch. 1068; see sec. as am. by Stats.1978, ch. 539; italics added.)
Under subdivision [d] of section 300, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court extends to any person whose home is unfit by reason of certain conditions. The fitness of the parent is not, under this subdivision, in issue as it might be in a proceeding under section 300, subdivision (b) . In addition, the use of the present tense verb indicates an intent the unfitness exists at the time of the hearing; however, past events can aid in a determination of present fitness (In re Melissa H., 38 Cal.App.3d 173, 175, 113 Cal.Rptr. 139). The potential return and resumption of residence in the home by the person responsible for making it unfit justifies the determination the best interest of the child would be served by making her a ward of the court (In re Melissa H., supra, at p. 175, 113 Cal.Rptr. 139, with citation).
In Melissa H., the stepfather had sexually assaulted the child and the home was found to be unfit. The stepfather stated, however, he hoped to be reunited with his family. The minor was declared a dependent and placed under the control and custody of the Welfare Department which placed her in the mother's home. The court said:
(In re Melissa H., supra, at p. 175, 113 Cal.Rptr. at p. 141.)
Here we have a similar unfitness of the home, though the person causing the abuse has not expressed his intent to return as in Melissa H. However, there is nothing in the record indicating he has expressed a willingness not to return and the close association with Sylvia in the past provides a basis for inferring there is a potential he may return. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the lower court's ruling, and we must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court (In re Robert P., supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 310, 315, 132 Cal.Rptr. 5; In re Luwanna S., 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114, 107 Cal.Rptr. 62). Accordingly, the lower court's determination the home is unfit based on past acts indicating his potential return must be affirmed.
The court's involvement in wardship matters is not necessarily based on a parent's wrongdoing. It is the welfare of the child which is of paramount concern (In re Raya, 255 Cal.App.2d 260, 264, 63 Cal.Rptr. 252; see also In re Florance, 47 Cal.2d 25, 28, 300 P.2d 825). The Legislature has provided four instances in which a court may, but is not required to, assume jurisdiction over a minor (see In re A. J., 274 Cal.App.2d 199, 202, 78 Cal.Rptr. 880). Not all of these involve the parent's misconduct, neglect, or inability to control the minor. Subdivision (a) deals with the absence of a parent or his failure to provide care and control. Subdivision (b) provides the court jurisdiction if the child is destitute, or is not provided the necessities of life, a home or a place of abode, without reference to a parent's actions. Thus, one parent who has the custody of the child may fail in this respect and the court would have jurisdiction, though the other parent is ready, willing and able to respond. Subdivision (c) provides authority for the court to assume jurisdiction where the child is physically dangerous to the public, again without a showing of fault on the part of a parent. 2 Subdivision (d) would give the court jurisdiction if there is a physical abuse of a child by a person in whose custody or care he is. This does not require the parent to be guilty of some wrongdoing or to have knowledge of a threat and we cannot read it into the statute.
The authority of the court to assume jurisdiction is based on a determination that one of these apparent exigent circumstances exists, indicating the minor may be in need of assistance. The court stated in In re A. J., supra, 274 Cal.App.2d 199 at 202, 78 Cal.Rptr. 880, at 882:
In In re B. G., 11 Cal.3d 679, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 523 P.2d 244, the Supreme Court held the juvenile court had jurisdiction over the children though the mother, a resident of Czechoslovakia, had done no wrong. The court originally asserted jurisdiction simply because the mother was absent 3 and the role of some person In loco parentis was required. In B. G., the court said:
(In re B. G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679, 694-695, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 455, 523 P.2d 244, 255.)
Can we be any more demanding when we seek only to put the court In loco parentis and are not denying the mother actual custody? (Cf. In re B. G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 523 P.2d 244; see In re Melissa H., supra, 38 Cal.App.3d 173, 175, 113 Cal.Rptr. 139.)
The wrongdoing of a parent is not the real concern of the court in this phase of the hearing (see People v.Aadland, 193 Cal.App.2d 584, 591-592, 14 Cal.Rptr. 462). It must be conceded a dominant potential right to custody of the child pervades our law (see Prob.Code, § 1407; Civ.Code, § 197; Roche v. Roche, 25 Cal.2d 141, 143-144, 152 P.2d 999), and the earlier cases have demonstrated a rather extreme case of neglect, cruelty or continuing exposure to immorality must be present before the court may take the drastic step of judicial intervention (In re Raya, supra (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 260, 265, 63 Cal.Rptr. 252). In more recent years,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re DAVID H., A118968.
...at p. 546, 247 Cal.Rptr. 784; In re Jennifer P. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 322, 325, fn. 2, 326, 219 Cal.Rptr. 909; In re Nicole B. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 874, 877-878, 155 Cal.Rptr. 916; In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 504, 509, 517, 254 Cal.Rptr. 883; In re Lisa D. (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 19......
-
In re David H.
...529 ; In re Katrina C., supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 546; In re Jennifer P. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 322, 325, fn. 2, 326 ; In re Nicole B. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 874, 877-878 ; In re Jessica B. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 504, 509, 517 ; In re Lisa D. (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 192, 194, fn. 1, 196-197 ; cf......
-
Albert B., In re
...of the juvenile court will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them. (In re Nicole B. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 874, 879, 155 Cal.Rptr. 916.) In this case, the evidence of parental ineffectiveness and/or neglect on which the petition was founded and on which......
-
Daniela M., In re
...the findings of the juvenile court will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support them. (In re Nicole B. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 874, 879 [ ].)"(In re Albert B. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 361, 375, 263 Cal.Rptr. A. Juan's Right to be Reunified with Daniela The first ......