Guardianship of S.H.R.

Case Number: B308440

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-09-02

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 petitioner failed to meet his preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence burden to prove either parental abandonment or neglect, and therefore could not obtain the statutory findings required for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status; consequently, the guardianship petition was moot and was properly dismissed.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that clarifies the evidentiary threshold for California courts tasked with furnishing the factual findings necessary for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, the Court of Appeal affirmed a probate court’s denial of both an SIJ petition and a related guardianship petition filed by a 19‑year‑old Salvadoran national, S.H.R. The ruling underscores that “substantial evidence” is insufficient where the statute expressly imposes a pre‑ponderance burden, and that a guardianship under Probate Code § 1510.1 cannot survive the loss of the underlying SIJ claim.

Procedural backdrop – S.H.R. filed two concurrent petitions in the Los Angeles Superior Court: (1) a petition under Probate Code § 1510.1 for the appointment of his cousin’s husband, Jesus Rivas, as guardian of his person, and (2) a petition under Code of Civil Procedure § 155 for the judicial findings required to support an SIJ classification under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). The trial court denied the SIJ petition as unsupported and, treating the SIJ denial as rendering the guardianship request moot, dismissed the guardianship petition. S.H.R. appealed the dual denial and also sought a writ of mandate. No respondent brief was filed; Public Counsel submitted an amicus brief supporting the appellant.

Factual matrix – S.H.R. entered the United States in August 2018, aged 17, and lived with his maternal cousin’s husband, Rivas, in Palmdale. He alleged that, while still a minor in El Salvador, he was forced to work long hours in his grandfather’s fields (ages 10‑15) and later was compelled by gang threats to quit high school and work at a car wash. He claimed his parents “neglected” and “abandoned” him because they failed to provide financial support, allowed the dangerous labor, and did not protect him from gang intimidation. He further asserted that returning to El Salvador would expose him to lethal gang violence, making reunification “not viable.”

Legal issues – The appeal presented three intertwined questions: (1) whether the trial court’s order denying the SIJ findings was appealable; (2) whether S.H.R. satisfied the statutory burden of proof for parental abandonment or neglect; and (3) whether he demonstrated that reunification with his parents was not viable because of that maltreatment. A subsidiary issue concerned whether the guardianship petition could survive the SIJ denial.

Court’s analysis

1. Appealability – The Court affirmed that the trial court’s order denying the SIJ petition disposes of all causes of action and therefore constitutes a final judgment subject to direct appeal. The court noted that while a writ of prohibition is available, the appeal was proper and sufficient.

2. Burden of proof and evidentiary standard – Section 155 does not specify a burden, so the Court applied the default preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard (Evid. Code § 115). The appellate court rejected the trial court’s reliance on “substantial evidence” as dicta, emphasizing that SIJ findings are factual determinations—not merely legal conclusions—and must be supported by a preponderance of uncontradicted evidence. The Court further stressed that the federal SIJ regime requires a state‑court factual finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment; a lower evidentiary threshold would not satisfy that requirement.

3. Neglect/abandonment – The appellant’s declaration described summer field labor, gang threats, and parental unemployment. The Court found no factual basis for abandonment: S.H.R. lived with his parents until he left El Salvador voluntarily, and there was no evidence of desertion or intent to sever parental ties. Regarding neglect, the Court examined California’s statutory definitions (Pen. Code § 11165.2, Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.57) and held that the alleged summer work, even if arduous, was performed with parental consent and did not rise to a “failure to provide adequate food, shelter, medical care, or supervision.” Likewise, the decision to pull S.H.R. from school was deemed a protective measure against credible gang threats, not a neglectful omission. The Court concluded that poverty or reliance on sibling earnings, absent proof of deprivation of basic necessities, does not constitute neglect.

4. Viability of reunification – Even assuming neglect, the petitioner must link that neglect causally to the impossibility of reunification. The Court adopted the “practical or workable” standard, requiring a realistic assessment of present conditions. It found no evidence that the parents would resume forced labor or that their unemployment rendered a return untenable. The fear of gang violence, while genuine, is not a statutory ground for a “non‑viable” finding absent parental maltreatment. Consequently, the trial court’s denial of the reunification finding was affirmed.

5. Guardianship petition – Probate Code § 1510.1 authorizes a guardian “in connection with” an SIJ petition. Once the SIJ petition was denied, no such connection remained, rendering the guardianship request moot. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s dismissal on that basis.

Closing analysis – This opinion solidifies the procedural and evidentiary rigor required of SIJ petitioners in California. By insisting on a preponderance burden and rejecting a “substantial evidence” shortcut, the Court aligns state‑court obligations with the federal mandate that SIJ eligibility rest on concrete judicial findings. Practitioners should note that parental economic hardship, child labor performed with consent, or protective school withdrawals are unlikely to satisfy the neglect or abandonment prongs. Moreover, the decision clarifies that a guardianship under § 1510.1 is inseparable from a viable SIJ claim; without the latter, the statutory jurisdiction evaporates. Unresolved questions remain about the precise contours of “viability” when parental abuse is documented but the child is now an adult—future litigation may need to address whether the age cutoff (under 21) alone can defeat reunification, or whether a broader “best‑interest” analysis is required. For now, California courts must demand clear, preponderant proof of the statutory grounds before issuing the findings that enable USCIS to grant SIJ status.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

• 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) – Definition of Special Immigrant Juvenile.
• 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(a) – USCIS regulations on SIJ findings.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 155 – Court authority to make SIJ findings.
• Probate Code § 1510.1 – Appointment of 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.
• Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.57 – Definition of neglect for dependent adults.
• Family Code §§ 3402, 7822, 48200 – Parental duties, abandonment, and compulsory school attendance.
• Labor Code §§ 1290, 1394 – Child labor restrictions and exemptions.

Key cases – In re Y.M. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 892; Bianka M. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1004; Eddie E. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 622; J.L. v. Cissna (2019) 374 F.Supp.3d 855; Reyes v. Cissna (4th Cir. 2018) 737 Fed.Appx. 140; Matter of A‑O‑C‑ (AAO 2019‑03); In re Israel O. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 279; Leslie H. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 340; O.C. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 76.