In re Quentin H

In In re Quentin H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 608, the father of an eight-year-old son and six-year-old daughter had been convicted in 1987 of sexual abuse of a child under 14 years old, and as a result was required to register as a sex offender. Reports submitted by DCFS contained evidence, "including statements from his children, their older siblings and their mother, that he had not behaved inappropriately with any child in his care, and the fact that he had not reoffended in the more than 20 years since he had been freed from custody." (230 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.) Father relied on such evidence to argue that he had rebutted the presumption of section 355.1, subdivision (d). However, rather than considering the totality of the evidence, the juvenile court relied solely on the presumption to conclude that the father's children were at risk of being sexually abused. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the father had rebutted the presumption, and that therefore the juvenile court was required shall determine whether the children were at risk based on all the evidence presented. (Id. at p. 620.) The court remanded the case for the juvenile court to "consider all of the evidence the Department cites, including the fact of the father's prior sex abuse conviction and any reasonable inferences to be derived from it , along with the evidence identified by the father, and to determine without regard to the section 355.1 presumption whether the Department has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction is proper based on the allegation involving the father's prior conviction and status as a registered sex offender." (Id. at pp. 620-621.) As the court explained in Quentin H., section 355.1, subdivision (d) "creates a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that a parent who has previously been convicted of sexual abuse as defined in Penal Code section 11165.1 or is required as the result of a felony conviction to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290 poses a substantial risk of harm to a child in his or her care or custody. The prior sexual abuse conviction functions as prima facie evidence of risk and imposes on the parent the burden of producing some evidence to show he or she does not pose a substantial risk of harm to the child. If evidence is introduced that would support a contrary finding, the presumption disappears, and the matter must be determined based on all the evidence presented, including the fact of the prior conviction and reasonable inferences derived from it." (230 Cal.App.4th at p. 610.)