Guardianship of S.H.R. - Case Brief

7 Mins read

Guardianship of S.H.R.

Case Number: B308440M

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-09-28

Case Brief – Guardianship of S.H.R.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: B308440
Disposition: The court’s orders denying appellant’s petition for special immigrant juvenile findings and denying as moot appellant’s petition for appointment of guardian are affirmed.

Holding

The court held that the trial court correctly applied the pre‑ponderance‑of‑the‑evidence burden under Code of Civil Procedure § 155 and Probate Code § 1510.1, found that S.H.R. failed to prove parental abandonment or neglect, and consequently failed to demonstrate that reunification with his parents was not viable; therefore the denial of both the SIJ findings and the related guardianship petition was proper and appealable.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that clarifies the evidentiary threshold for California courts tasked with making special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) findings, the Second Appellate District affirmed a probate court’s denial of both SIJ findings and a related guardianship petition filed by a 19‑year‑old Salvadoran national, holding that the petitioner had not met his statutory burden to prove parental abandonment or neglect, nor the causal link required to render reunification “not viable.”

Procedural History – S.H.R. filed two concurrent petitions in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. 19AVPB00310): (1) a petition for appointment of a guardian of the person under Probate Code § 1510.1, and (2) a petition for SIJ findings under Code of Civil Procedure § 155. The trial court denied the SIJ petition on August 25, 2020, finding no sufficient evidence of abandonment or neglect and no proof that reunification was unworkable. Because the SIJ petition was a prerequisite for the guardianship, the court dismissed the guardianship petition as moot. S.H.R. appealed the denial and also sought a writ of mandate; the appellate court treated the writ as the opening brief and, with no respondent brief filed, affirmed the lower court’s orders.

Facts – S.H.R. was born in El Salvador in December 2001, migrated to the United States in August 2018, and lived with his maternal cousin’s husband, Jesus Rivas, in Palmdale. He alleged that, from ages 10 to 15, he worked long hours in his grandfather’s fields, that gang members repeatedly threatened him and his family, and that his parents withdrew him from high school for his safety, forcing him to work at a car wash. He claimed his parents “neglected” and “abandoned” him, and that returning to El Salvador would expose him to gang violence.

Issues – The appeal raised three core questions: (1) whether the appellate court could review the trial court’s denial of SIJ findings; (2) whether S.H.R. satisfied the statutory burden to prove parental abandonment or neglect; and (3) whether he demonstrated that reunification with his parents was not viable because of that abandonment or neglect.

Court’s Analysis

Appealability – The court affirmed that an order denying a petition for SIJ findings disposes of the entire case and therefore constitutes a final, appealable judgment under Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688.

Burden of Proof – Section 155 does not specify a burden, so the court applied the default pre‑ponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard (Evid. Code § 115). The petitioner, not the state, bears the burden of proving the factual elements required for SIJ status: (a) parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under California law; and (b) that reunification is not viable because of that basis.

Neglect and Abandonment – The appellate court rejected S.H.R.’s reliance on his summer farm labor, the forced withdrawal from school, and his parents’ unemployment as proof of neglect or abandonment. California law defines neglect as a failure to provide adequate food, shelter, medical care, or supervision (Pen. Code § 11165.2). Working in a family‑owned farm with parental consent, even under harsh conditions, does not satisfy that definition. Likewise, removing a child from school to protect him from credible gang threats, while arguably unwise, was deemed a protective decision rather than neglect. The court emphasized that abandonment requires a demonstrable intent to sever parental relations, which S.H.R. did not show; his parents even urged him to stay in El Salvador.

Viability of Reunification – Even assuming, arguendo, that neglect existed, S.H.R. offered no evidence that such neglect rendered reunification “not viable” as required by § 155(b)(1)(B). The record showed no indication that his parents would compel him to resume hazardous field labor or that they could not provide basic care. The court adopted the “practical workability” standard articulated in cases such as J.U. v. J.C.P.C. (D.C. 2018) and held that S.H.R.’s fear of gang violence, while genuine, does not satisfy the statutory nexus between parental maltreatment and reunification infeasibility.

Guardianship Petition – Probate Code § 1510.1 authorizes a guardian “in connection with” a SIJ petition. Once the SIJ petition was denied, no longer was there a “connection,” rendering the guardianship request moot. The appellate court therefore affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the guardianship petition.

Conclusion and Impact – The decision underscores that California courts must apply a rigorous, fact‑based analysis when evaluating SIJ petitions, and that the statutory burden remains on the petitioner to prove both neglect/abandonment and the causal link to reunification infeasibility. The ruling also clarifies that the “substantial evidence” language cited in O.C. is dicta and not controlling; trial courts must require pre‑ponderance proof, not merely the existence of any supporting evidence.

For practitioners, the opinion signals that declarations alone—especially when uncorroborated by admissible evidence—are unlikely to satisfy the evidentiary threshold. Counsel should anticipate the need for sworn testimony, contemporaneous records, or other verifiable documentation of parental maltreatment. Moreover, the court’s treatment of the guardianship provision reinforces that a successful SIJ finding is a prerequisite for invoking Probate Code § 1510.1, limiting the utility of a standalone guardianship petition. Unresolved questions remain regarding the precise definition of “viable” reunification and whether future appellate panels may adopt a more expansive view of neglect that includes economic deprivation.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) – Federal definition of Special Immigrant Juvenile status.
  • Code of Civil Procedure § 155 – California statutory scheme for SIJ findings.
  • Probate Code § 1510.1 – Authority to appoint a guardian of the person for SIJ petitions.
  • Evidence Code §§ 115, 500 – Burden of proof and party bearing the burden.
  • Penal Code § 11165.2 – Definition of neglect under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
  • Family Code §§ 3402, 7822 – Legal standards for abandonment.
  • Labor Code §§ 1290, 1394 – Restrictions on child labor.

Key Cases

  • In re Y.M. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 892 – Overview of SIJ purpose.
  • Bianka M. v. Superior Court (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1004 – Interpretation of § 155(b)(1).
  • Eddie E. v. Superior Court (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 622 – Requirement that state courts make factual SIJ findings.
  • J.L. v. Cissna (2019) 374 F. Supp. 3d 855 – Connection between state findings and federal SIJ eligibility.
  • In re Israel O. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 279 – Appealability of SIJ denial.
  • Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688 – Definition of final, appealable orders.
  • J.U. v. J.C.P.C. (D.C. 2018) – “Practical workability” standard for reunification viability.
  • O.C. v. Superior Court (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 76 – Discussed “substantial evidence” (cited as dicta).