In re D.B.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that a juvenile dependency court has authority under Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5, subdivision (a), to issue a restraining order against a dependent child to protect a parent. The court further held that the dependency court must consider the child’s best interest when exercising that authority and concluded that substantial evidence supported the one-year restraining order against D.B. The court also rejected D.B.’s claim that the order violated her constitutional right to reunification and affirmed the order.

Holdings

1. Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5, subdivision (a), authorizes a juvenile dependency court to issue a restraining order against a dependent child to protect a parent, because the statute permits an order against 'a person' and contains no exception for dependent children or parents whose reunification services have ended.
2. When exercising discretion under section 213.5 to issue a restraining order against a dependent child, the dependency court must consider the child’s best interest. Such orders should be issued rarely, with attention to the severity of violation consequences and the particular circumstances of dependent children.
3. Section 213.5 does not require a dependency court to consider preservation of the family unit in every case when deciding whether to issue a restraining order against a dependent child, particularly after reunification services have terminated.
4. Substantial evidence supported the restraining order, and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in issuing it.
5. The restraining order did not violate D.B.’s constitutional interest in reunification with Mother because reunification services had already been terminated with D.B.’s agreement, and D.B. did not appeal the termination orders.
6. Although D.B. turned 18 and the restraining order expired while the appeal was pending, the court exercised its discretion to decide the appeal because it presented an issue of broad public interest likely to evade appellate review and could have continuing consequences for D.B.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5, subdivision (a), authorizes a juvenile dependency court to issue a restraining order against a dependent child to protect a parent.
2. What factors a dependency court must consider when exercising its discretion to issue a restraining order against a dependent child.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s restraining order.
4. Whether the restraining order violated D.B.’s constitutional interest in reunification with Mother.
5. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because D.B. turned 18 and the restraining order expired while the appeal was pending.

Disposition

affirmed