San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. R.B. (In re S.B.)
| Decision Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | E058328 |
| Citation | 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 887,222 Cal.App.4th 612 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Bernardino County Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.B., Defendant and Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 10 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Parent and Child, § 651.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed. (Super.Ct.No. J246789)
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean–Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The San Bernardino County Children and Family Services Department (CFS) intervened on behalf of 12–year–old S.B. and her half-siblings (not involved in this appeal) due to her mother's mental illness and substance abuse, and her father's failure to protect. The parent's submitted at the jurisdictional hearing. At the dispositional hearing, reunification services were granted to mother, who is not a party to this appeal, but father was denied services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16), because he was a registered sex offender. Father appealed.
On appeal, father claims that (1) section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16) is inapplicable because he was not required to register as a sex offender under federal law, and (2) there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that reunification services would not be in the minor's best interests. We affirm.
On November 8, 2012, mother of S.B. (and S.B.'s two half-siblings, M.N., and M.M.) was admitted at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center for suicidal ideation as well as bizarre and aggressive behavior. Mother has eight children altogether and a lengthy history of unstable living arrangements, as well as a history of interventions by child welfare services for all of her children. Some of mother's children are adults. Each of the three children in mother's custody at the time of the current proceedings had a different father.2
On November 13, 2012, CFS filed a dependency petition as to 12–year–old S.B., and her half-siblings M.N., and M.M. As to S.B., the petition alleged failure to protect within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b), due to mother's substance abuse and mental health issues, which interfered with mother's ability to provide adequate and appropriate care, supervision and provisions for the child. As to father, the petition alleged that he had a history of substance abuse which interfered with his ability to provide adequate and appropriate care. Further, it was alleged that he had knowledge of mother's substance abuse and mental health problems but failed to protect S.B. The petition also included an allegation that S.B. had been left with no provision for support within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (g), in that father's whereabouts were unknown. The children were detained with their maternal grandmother.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the parents submitted on the social worker's reports. Those reports outlined mother's history of using marijuana three times daily and the children's statements about chaotic living conditions. Mother admitted she suffered from bipolar disorder but she did not believe she needed medication.
The children reported to the social worker that mother would yell and scream for no reason, hit or push them to the ground or against a wall, and drag S.B. by the hair. They also reported that mother did not fix meals for them regularly, get them to school on time, or take them for regular medical or dental appointments. The social worker described mother as suffering from psychosis, or delusional thinking, as a related symptom of a manic episode of bipolar disorder.
As to father, the report on which the parents submitted revealed he had custody of S.B. until his arrest and incarceration in 2010 for lewd acts. Father has a lengthy history of marijuana and methamphetamine use, dating back to his teenage years. Father also had an extensive criminal history, including drug related charges, and a 2010 conviction for a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1), lewd or lascivious acts with a child of 14 or 15 years. Although father was clean and sober for several years while he had custody of S.B., he attributed his commission of the sexual offense to a drug relapse during the three weeks prior to the offense in 2010. He was sentenced to state prison for that offense and was paroled on December 28, 2011. Father is required to register as a sex offender.
The report also included allegations that father had exposed himself to his stepdaughter A.H. and had previously molested A.H.'s cousin, M.Z., on separate occasions in 2010. However, these allegations were not substantiated.
At the dispositional hearing, the court heard testimony from father and the social worker. Father denied any inappropriate conduct with A.H. or M.Z. Although he admitted he was required to register as a sex offender, he wanted to reunify with his daughter. The court also accepted a stipulation by all parties that if S.B. were to take the stand, she would testify that she is not afraid of her father, wanted a chance to reunify with him, had lived with him from the time she was two or three years of age until she was nine or 10, enjoyed her visits with him, loved him, and would be happy to live with him one day.
The court removed custody of S.B. from her parents and maintained her in the relative placement. The court found that placement of S.B. with father, the noncustodial parent, would be detrimental. The court granted services to mother, but denied services to father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16), because he is required to be registered on a sex offender registry under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (41 U.S.C. § 16913(a)), as required in section 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI)).3 Father appealed.
Father argues it was error to deny him services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16), because that subdivision is inapplicable. Father interprets the subdivision to authorize a bypass of reunification services only where registration is “mandated by the Superior Court in compliance with 42 U.S.C. sections 5106a(2)(B)(xvi)(VI) and 16913(a).” According to father's interpretation, unless those magic words were pronounced by a superior court judge during his criminal sentencing hearing, and unless he was required to register under federal law, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16) does not apply. We disagree.
For many years, California's child welfare policies have been shaped by grants from the federal government under the CAPTA, later revised under the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub.L. § 111–320, §§ 1, 115.) To be eligible for grant funds under CAPTA, states are required to adopt certain policies and procedures, relating to programs for prevention of child abuse and neglect, and services for families in need under parts B and E of title IV. (42 U.S.C. §§ 620, et seq.,670, et seq.) Each state that applies for a grant must submit a state plan which contains a description of the activities that the state will carry out using the grants, and certain assurances. (42 U.S.C. § 5106a, subd. (b)(2).)
California receives grants for child abuse or neglect prevention programs. (42 U.S.C. § 5106a.) To be eligible for these grants, California is required to submit a state plan containing a description of the activities that it will carry out using the grant money (42 U.S.C. § 5106a, subd. (b)(2)), including an assurance that the state plan is coordinated with the state plan under part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C., § 621, et seq.) relating to child welfare services and family preservation and family support services. (42 U.S.C. § 5106a, subd. (b)(2)(A).) Additionally, the state plan must include an assurance that the state has in effect and is enforcing a state law, or has in effect and is operating a statewide program relating to child abuse and neglect that includes provisions, procedures, and mechanisms to assure that the state does not require reunification of a surviving child with a parent who has been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be required to register with a sex offender registry under section 113(a) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. § 16913, subd. (a)). (42 U.S.C. § 5106a, subd. (b)(2)(B)(xvi)(VI).)
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(16), was added in 2012, as part of Senate Bill 1521. (Stats.2012, ch. 847.) Legislative Counsel's Digest explains that the change to section 361.5, subdivision (b), was adopted to conform to CAPTA, specifically, the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub.L. § 111–320, §§ 1, 115) among other provisions, which required the amendment of applicable state plans. (Stats.2012, ch. 847, p. 1; Sen. Bill No. 1521.) The bill included as a situation when family reunification would not be required, one where a parent has been required by the court to be registered on a sex offender registry under a specified federal law. (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Bill No. 1521 (2011–2012 Reg. Sess.).)
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam Walsh Act,” or “the Act”) was a comprehensive federal statutory scheme designed to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
San Bernardino Cnty. Children v. E.E. (In re A.E.)
...such services constitutes an abuse of discretion. ( In re William B. , supra , at p. 1229, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 ; In re S.B. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 612, 623, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 887 ; In re Ethan N. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 55, 65, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 504.)2. Reunification Bypass Under Section 361.5(b)(6......
-
Yohner v. Cal. Dep't of Justice, D065985
...available to the public via an Internet Web site, commonly known as the “Megan's Law” Web site. (See In re S.B. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 612, 620, fn. 5, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 887.)2 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 The exclusion at issue in G.......
-
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children v. Richard H. (In re Quentin H.)
...Cal.Rptr.2d 914; Evid.Code, § 606.) 7. The Department offered two cases in support of its jurisdiction arguments, In re S.B. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 612, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 887, a case from the Fourth Appellate District involving denial of reunification services to a father with a history of se......
-
L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Richard H. (In re Quentin H.)
...Cal.Rptr.2d 914 ; Evid.Code, § 606.)7 The Department offered two cases in support of its jurisdiction arguments, In re S.B. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 612, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 887, a case from the Fourth Appellate District involving denial of reunification services to a father with a history of sex......