CACI inclusion defeats mootness challenges in dependency appeals. . .

In reversal, the California Supreme Court held that a parent demonstrates a specific legal or practical consequence that would be avoided upon reversal of jurisdictional findings in a dependency proceeding when the parent shows the challenged allegation is one that an agency must report for inclusion in California's Child Abuse Central Index.

Mother directed her eldest daughter, who was 22 years old at the time, to move out of her home following a disagreement about the daughter's boyfriend residing there. When the eldest daughter left, the middle daughter ran away with her. Shortly thereafter, the two oldest daughters took mother's youngest daughter from home without permission and did not return her until mother threatened to call the police.

The following day, the two eldest daughters confronted mother at her home. One witness indicated the daughters were standing in a way "'like they were trying to fight [mother].'" Another witness reported the daughters "'kept saying they wanted to get back in the house and they wanted [mother] to leave, like a take over.'" In response to the middle daughter coming at her, mother hit the daughter twice and pushed or struck her with the pole end of a shovel. Believing the eldest daughter was grabbing a weapon from her purse, mother then brandished a camping knife, shouted at the daughters, and called someone to say her daughter "'was about to get killed.'" Mother made threats to both children's lives before calling the police as well as the child protective services hotline.

Mother's self-defense leads to a dependency action. . .
Due to this incident, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed the two youngest daughters. After the detention hearing, the daughters stated that the eldest daughter manipulated them to make untruthful statements to responders about the incident. The middle daughter further said that an injury on her torso was not caused by mother as she had previously told police. The middle daughter added that mother unintentionally hit her when she was physically intervening between mother and the eldest daughter.

At the combined jurisdiction/dispositional hearing, the parties agreed mother was defending herself against the oldest daughters, but they disagreed whether mother's actions were reasonable. The juvenile court found mother's actions unreasonable, noting, "'I would imagine there was a lot of disrespectful language that was directed at [mother], but the court does not find that her grabbing a shovel and hitting [the middle daughter], leaving a mark on her, and then grabbing a knife and then threatening them was justified.'" As such, the juvenile court sustained the petition. As to the disposition, the juvenile court removed the two youngest daughters from mother's home, ordered mother's participation in counseling, and ordered monitored visitation. Mother appealed. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction. As a result, the Second District dismissed mother's appeal after determining it was moot and declined to exercise its discretion in reviewing the merits. In doing so, the Second District rejected mother's argument that merits review was necessary because "'she may have been reported to [California's Child Abuse Central index (CACI)].'" After granting review, the California Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

The justices began their analysis by describing the principles of law related to mootness, first noting that a case becomes moot when events render it impossible for a court to grant any effective relief to the appealing party. For relief to be effective (1) the appealing party must complain of an ongoing harm; and (2) that harm must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the outcome the appealing party seeks.

Applying these principles in the dependency context, the justices noted that when a juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction without issuing any order that continues to impact the parents, the risk of stigma alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal. Instead, the stigma must be paired with some effect on the parent's legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision.

The justices next described the CACI system, noting it is a database comprised of substantiated reports of child abuse or severe neglect and that certain agencies are required to forward qualifying reports to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) for CACI inclusion. Information included in the CACI is available to certain state agencies, employers, and law enforcement. Before forwarding a report for inclusion, the reporting agency must perform an investigation to determine whether the report is substantiated. When an agency forwards a substantiated report, it must provide contemporaneous written notice to the subject of the report. That person is then entitled to challenge their inclusion at a hearing before the reporting agency. The justices noted that inclusion in CACI may impact employment, licenses, volunteer opportunities, and child custody.

With these principles in mind, the justices found that mother has shown ongoing harm by demonstrating that the sustained allegation of child abuse has been or will be included in the CACI. Specifically, the justices found that unlike other cases where it is questionable whether the underlying conduct is reportable, there is no dispute here that mother's conduct is reportable. Moreover, DCFS did not represent that the report has not been made or will not be forwarded to the DOJ.

The justices next concluded that the harm to mother's legal status is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision. For example, by reversing the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding, it is possible for mother to have her listing removed from the CACI. DCFS argued that reversal of the jurisdictional finding may not "'automatically mandate removal of a parent from the CACI.'" The justices countered that automatic removal from the CACI is not required to defeat a mootness challenge. Instead, "it is sufficient that reversal would either result in the agency withdrawing the report or at the least, preserve a parent's right to a grievance hearing that would not otherwise be available."

The justices also rejected DCFS's argument that mother would not be entitled to any relief pursuant to a grievance hearing based on her failure to challenge the fact that she committed physical acts against her daughter. The justices noted two problems with this argument. First, DCFS seemed to argue that acting in self-defense to ward off an attack by a minor constitutes child abuse for CACI inclusion. And second, a mootness challenge does not hinge on the outcome of the grievance hearing. Instead, it is sufficient to show that mother would regain her right to a grievance hearing.

For the foregoing reasons, the California Supreme Court held mother's appeal is not moot. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Second District's order dismissing mother's appeal and remanded to the Second District for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Reasonable self-defense does not constitute child abuse. . .
In a concurring opinion, Justice Liu noted that lawfully acting in reasonable self-defense to ward off an attack by a minor does not constitute child abuse under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. First, in relevant statutes codifying the right to self-defense and defining child abuse and neglect, the Legislature could have specified that child abuse or neglect encompasses acts of self-defense, but did not. Second, Justice Liu found specified case law instructive in reaching his conclusion. For example, in People v. Clark (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 235, the Third District held the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense as a defense to child abuse under PC 273a. Justice Liu added, "It would make little sense for reasonable resistance to a minor's use of force to be lawful yet reportable conduct for inclusion in the CACI." For these reasons, Justice Liu would find that a reporting agency may not report lawful self-defense for CACI inclusion, must update the DOJ to remove an individual from the CACI once a self-defense determination is made, and should refrain from arguing for CACI inclusion when an individual shows lawful self-defense.