Stephanie M., In re
| Decision Date | 24 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. S030816,S030816 |
| Citation | 867 P.2d 706,27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595,7 Cal.4th 295 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 7 Cal.4th 724A, 867 P.2d 706 In re STEPHANIE M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMA M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Carmela F. Simoncini, San Diego, Miriam R. Kennedy, Tucson, AZ, and Pierce M. Kavanagh, La Jolla, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for defendants and appellants.
Enrique Loaeza Tovar, Consul General of Mexico, and Celia I. Ballesteros, San Diego, as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and appellants.
Lloyd R. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel, Susan Strom, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and John E. Philips, Deputy County Counsel, for plaintiff and respondent.
Janice R. Mazur, San Diego, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for minor.
Francis J. Bardsley, Public Defender, San Diego, Ana Espana, Deputy Public Defender, De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Larry Cory, Asst. County Counsel, Thomas Lyon, Belmont, Jeanette Malouf, Burbank, Lee W. Selvig, Jennings, Engstrand & Henrikson, Debra K. Maurer and Dearing D. English, San Diego, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent and minor.
The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the juvenile court denying a motion for change of placement of a minor from foster care to her grandmother's care, 16 Cal.App. 4th 1510, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 104. The Court of Appeal concluded that the lower court's error in ruling on the motion for change of placement also required reversal of its ensuing order terminating parental rights. The minor and the San Diego County Department of Social Services (Department) petitioned for review, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its judgment for that of the juvenile court, in failing to accept the proffer on appeal of new evidence regarding the child's best interests and in ordering her immediate transfer to her Mexican guardian without further hearing in the juvenile court. In response, the parents and Mexico, as amici curiae, have questioned the jurisdiction of any court of this state to determine the custody of the minor, who is a Mexican national.
We conclude that the juvenile court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. (Fam.Code, § 3400 et seq.) We also conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for change of placement. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be reversed. Because we reverse, we do not reach the other issues presented by the minor and the Department.
Stephanie M. was born on January 26, 1989, in Guadalajara, Mexico. She lived in her maternal grandmother's home with her mother until she was nine months old. She moved with her mother in October 1989 to Oceanside in San Diego County, to join her father. All three were Mexican citizens who had entered the United States illegally.
On February 15, 1990, the Department filed a petition to establish the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over Stephanie under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), alleging that the child had suffered nonaccidental injuries and that the parents had failed to provide adequate medical treatment. 1 It was alleged that on February 11, 1990, the parents brought Stephanie to the hospital because she had stopped breathing. The child was diagnosed as suffering from battered child syndrome. In addition to three bone fractures and substantial bruising, she had recently been suffocated.
The parents denied any abuse and explained that Stephanie had suffered an accident in which her arm was broken and that they had sought treatment from a masseuse, according to purported Mexican custom.
At the detention hearing on February 15, 1990, the juvenile court found a prima facie showing had been made that Stephanie was a person described in section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and ordered her placed in foster care. The court ordered the Department to evaluate the homes of relatives for possible placement and authorized detention of the minor with those relatives if appropriate.
Stephanie's maternal grandmother 2 told the social worker assigned to the case that she wished to care for the child. On February 27, 1990, the court set the matter for a contested jurisdictional hearing and authorized the Department to place the child with her grandmother after consultation with the child's counsel. The child remained in foster care, however.
The jurisdictional hearing was held on April 10, 1990. Before the court was the Department's report containing psychological evaluations describing the parents' inadequate functioning and denial of abuse. The Department recommended that Stephanie be placed with her grandmother, as the two were attached to each other, the Mexican social service report was positiveand the Mexican agency was willing to assume supervision of the case. The Department's counterpart in Guadalajara, the Sistema Para El Desarrollo Integrale de la Familia Jalisco, had evaluated the grandmother's home favorably, finding it large and the family in possession of sufficient income to care for Stephanie. This agency also recommended placing Stephanie with her grandmother.
Also before the court at the jurisdictional hearing were medical reports describing the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the child, and reports from the receiving hospital that the parents denied inflicting the injuries, which were clearly nonaccidental. The foster parents proffered evidence that their pediatrician thought it likely Stephanie had been undernourished before her arrival in the United States. They also stated that Stephanie was afraid of her father, and indeed, exhibited extreme fear of most men. They expressed concern that to release the child to her grandmother in Mexico would invite contact with the parents that would be dangerous for the child.
The court found the allegations of the petition true and continued Stephanie in foster care, ordering further reports on the grandmother's suitability and on the question of Stephanie's malnutrition.
At the disposition hearing on May 2, 1990, the court received the social worker's report, which noted that two pediatricians agreed that Stephanie had been malnourished in the past. The social worker stated that she had requested a second evaluation of the grandmother's home, as the grandmother herself had been absent when the Mexican social service agency had evaluated it before. The social worker recommended continued foster care. Also before the court was the report of an investigator employed by Stephanie's counsel, declaring that the grandmother had told the investigator that she did not believe the parents had abused Stephanie, and that the girl had breathing problems as an infant. The grandmother told the investigator, however, that if the child were placed with the grandparents, they would put the child's interest above that of the parents, and would not allow the parents to take Stephanie without court approval.
The court declared Stephanie a dependent of the court and continued her placement in foster care pursuant to section 361, subdivision (b), ordered reunification services for the parents and notified the parents that their parental rights could be terminated if they failed to complete reunification within 12 months. The parents did not appeal.
On July 20, 1990, Voices for Children was appointed as special advocate/guardian ad litem for Stephanie.
At the six-month review hearing held on October 31, 1990, pursuant to section 366, the parents had complied with the reunification plan but continued to deny abuse. The social worker recommended against placement with the grandmother because the grandmother did not believe the parents had abused the child and would therefore be unable to protect the child against further abuse by the parents. The foster parents reported that Stephanie was upset by her parents' weekly visits.
The social worker and special advocate recommended continued foster placement but increased visitation with the parents. The special advocate evaluated the grandmother, noting her visits but questioning her ability to protect Stephanie from the parents. She reported that the parents wished to return to Mexico once they regained custody of the child, but did not wish to live with the grandmother. The special advocate noted conflicting evidence regarding Stephanie's malnutrition in Mexico, and the grandmother's insistence that Stephanie's parents could not have abused her. The psychologist working with the parents also noted their continued denial of abuse and recommended continued foster care.
The court ordered continued foster placement and supervised visitation, along with therapy for the parents.
On May 1, 1991, the case was set for a contested 12-month review on July 8, 1991, and that hearing was continued to July 23, 1991.
On June 6, 1991, the juvenile court received a letter from the consul general of Mexico serving in San Diego, noting its duty to protect and aid Mexican nationals and asking the court to consider the grandmother's demonstrated interest in custody of the child, that the Mexican social service agency had concluded in its second evaluation that the grandmother could meet the needs of the child, and that the entire family, including the child, were Mexican citizens. The consul general asked the court to consider placing the child with the grandmother.
Also on June 6, 1991, the foster parents applied for de facto parent standing, emphasizing their close connection with the child since her placement with them on March 22, 1990, and their desire to adopt the child. The court granted them de facto parent status.
At the 12-month review hearing held on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. C.P. (In re J.P.)
...in determining the child's best interests is the goal of assuring stability and continuity." ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595, 867 P.2d 706.) The petitioning parent has the burden to establish changed circumstances to justify changed orders that will promot......
-
S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)
...what the child's life would be like in an adoptive home without the parent in his life. (Cf. In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317–318, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595, 867 P.2d 706 ( Stephanie M. ).) The court makes the assessment by weighing the harm of losing the relationship against the benef......
-
Jasmon O., In re
...the juvenile court in the action from the time the child is made a dependent child of the juvenile court (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 316, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595, 867 P.2d 706; In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 308-309, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 851 P.2d 826), including the order......
-
In re KARLA C.
...371, 376, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 687, italics added.) The UCCJEA applies to juvenile dependency proceedings. ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 310, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595, 867 P.2d 706; Fam.Code, § 3402, subd. (d).) Under the UCCJEA, California courts have jurisdiction to make child custody de......
-
Reciprocity in China-US Judgments Recognition.
...1(2). Judgments that fall outside the scope of the uniform acts may still be enforced as a matter of comity. See In re Stephanie M., 867 P.2d 706, 716 (Cal. 1994) (noting that Mexican guardianship decree might be recognized as a matter of (123.) 2005 UNIFORM ACT, supra note 103, [section] 3......