Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Aurora P.
194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383, 241 Cal. App. 4th 1142 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Welfare and Institutions Code § 364(c), which creates a statutory presumption in favor of terminating dependency jurisdiction, the party opposing termination bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions justifying jurisdiction still exist or are likely to exist.
Facts:
- The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) initiated a dependency proceeding for T.M. (Mother)'s five children (Minors) based on allegations of physical and sexual abuse.
- Initially, the Minors were removed from Mother's custody and placed in foster care while she received reunification services.
- After Mother made significant progress in her case plan, the juvenile court returned all five Minors to her custody under a family maintenance plan.
- While living with Mother, the family continued to face challenges; the Agency received several new referrals for child abuse and neglect, all of which were ultimately determined to be inconclusive or were 'evaluated out'.
- Mother struggled with her own mental health needs and parenting five emotionally challenged children, and service providers noted the home could appear chaotic.
- Despite ongoing concerns, the Agency's overall assessment was that Mother was engaged with services, meeting the Minors' needs, and had alleviated the conditions that initially led to the dependency.
- The Agency ultimately recommended that the court terminate its jurisdiction over the family and dismiss the dependency case.
Procedural Posture:
- The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) filed a dependency petition in juvenile court concerning T.M. (Mother)'s five children (Minors).
- The juvenile court sustained the petition, declared the Minors to be dependents of the court, and ordered family reunification services.
- After several status review hearings, the court returned the Minors to Mother's custody with ongoing family maintenance services.
- At a final family maintenance hearing, the Agency recommended terminating jurisdiction, which the Minors' counsel opposed.
- After a contested hearing where testimony and reports were considered, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and dismissed the dependency.
- The Minors, as appellants, filed a timely appeal of the juvenile court's order to the Court of Appeal of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a dependency status review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code § 364(c), does the party opposing a social service agency’s recommendation to terminate jurisdiction bear the burden of proof to show that conditions justifying jurisdiction still exist?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, P. J.
Yes. The party opposing the termination of dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code § 364(c) bears the burden of proof. The statute establishes a presumption in favor of termination, creating a 'status quo' or default result. The party seeking to upset this statutory default—in this case, the Minors who opposed the Agency's recommendation to terminate—must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions justifying continued jurisdiction still exist or are likely to exist. Because the Minors bore the burden of proof in the juvenile court and failed to meet it, on appeal they must show that the evidence compels a finding in their favor as a matter of law, a high standard they did not meet. The court found that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's implied finding that Mother was in compliance with her case plan and that termination of jurisdiction was appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the allocation of the burden of proof in juvenile dependency status review hearings under § 364(c), a novel issue at the time. It establishes that the statute's preference for termination creates a legal 'status quo' that any party seeking to continue jurisdiction must overcome with evidence. This solidifies the legislative goal of ending court supervision when a social service agency deems it unnecessary, placing a significant evidentiary hurdle on any party, including the children themselves, who advocate for continued oversight. The ruling also sets a very high bar for appellants in such cases, requiring them to show not just that evidence supported their position, but that the evidence compelled a ruling in their favor.
