## Facts

- San Diego County Department of Social Services filed a dependency petition alleging the mother could not protect her child from molestation/nonaccidental injury and that she used narcotics or dangerous drugs.
- The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction and removed the child from the mother’s custody under the statutory clear-and-convincing-evidence removal standard.
- After the child was later placed with foster parents, the juvenile court held periodic review hearings.
- At the 18-month review hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that returning the child would create a substantial risk of detriment, found reasonable reunification services had been provided, and set a Welfare and Institutions Code § 366.26 selection-and-implementation hearing.
- The mother sought writ relief, arguing due process required a clear-and-convincing standard for the review-hearing detriment finding because it could lead to termination of parental rights at the § 366.26 hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether due process is violated when a § 366.26 termination-of-parental-rights proceeding may proceed based on earlier “detriment” findings made by a preponderance of the evidence at statutory review hearings rather than by clear and convincing evidence.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court upheld the statutory scheme against the due process challenge.
- The court held that, when evaluated as a whole, the dependency framework provides sufficient substantive and procedural protections even though review-hearing detriment findings use a preponderance standard.
- The court affirmed the denial of the mother’s petition for writ of mandate/prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Due process review of parental-rights termination procedures examines the entire statutory process, not a single evidentiary standard in isolation.
- California’s dependency system requires clear and convincing evidence for initial removal from parental custody, satisfying the need for heightened proof at the stage of major custodial deprivation.
- Review hearings apply a preponderance standard to determine whether return would create a substantial risk of detriment, within a process that includes repeated review, required reunification services findings, and opportunities to be heard with counsel.
- A § 366.26 hearing is primarily a permanency selection proceeding that follows prior removal and review determinations and turns on adoptability and statutory exceptions, rather than a first-instance adjudication of parental unfitness.

## Conclusion

The court held that California’s multi-stage dependency framework, including preponderance-based detriment findings at review hearings that can lead to a § 366.26 permanency hearing, satisfies Fourteenth Amendment due process because the overall structure meaningfully reduces erroneous deprivation while allowing timely permanence for the child.


Cynthia D. v. Superior Ct., 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 698 (Cal. 1993)