Welcome to
LEGISLATION
2007-2008 Session
This page was last updated on
Monday, 27 August 2007.
Read the
latest Legislative
Committee report
For recent
California Court of Appeal decisions click
here.
For important dates on the legislative calendar
click here.
Recent
Decisions of the Courts of Appeal
If you click to read a case and are asked for a password,
just click Cancel and it will appear.
-
CALIFORNIA:
IN RE MICHAEL R.
The Court of Appeals of California affirmed a trial court’s order to dismiss the prospective adoptive parent’s adoption petition. The court held that the potential adoptive mother did not have standing to adopt after the birth mother rescinded her relinquishment due to changes in the adoptive family. In addition, the court found that the birth mother had not abandoned her child by placing him for adoption.
California: Donna L. v. Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services
The Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, upheld the determination of the trial court in terminating the incarcerated mother’s reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing. The trial court adopted the findings recommended by DSS that due to the mother’s lack of substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment program because of her incarceration and her history of immediate relapse upon release from prison, a termination of reunification services and the scheduling of a permanency planning hearing was warranted.
Cite: C048140, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 69(January 4, 2005)
Click HERE for full opinionThe Court of Appeal of California reversed the order of the trial court terminating mother’s parental rights and scheduling a permanency planning hearing due to the social services department’s noncompliance with
the notice provisions of the ICWA. Although the social worker testified that notice had been given to the Indian tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and responses received, the department conceded it had not complied with the ICWA due to the lack of documentary evidence in the file. The Court found that this error was not harmless, and the juvenile court must be provided with copies of the forms sent by the department and responses received by it in order to evaluate whether the department complied with the ICWA.Cite: Nos. A106332- A108170, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 51(January 5, 2005)
Click HERE for full opinionIn re Katelyn N.
The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County denying natural mother a full hearing on a petition for a change of child placement. In order to be granted a hearing, the parent must show a change of circumstances which warrants the change in placement and that the change in placement is in the child’s best interests.
Cite: 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11295
Click Here for Case SummaryLeroy B. v. Orange County Social Services Agency
The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, granted the natural father’s petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County scheduling a permanency hearing for his son. The appellate court determined that the juvenile court referred the case to a permanency planning hearing without clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been provided to accommodate special needs of the child and child’s statutorily presumed father, when disabled father failed to obtain bus transportation passes from the Social Services Agency to visit his son during reunification services.
Cite: 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11352
Click Here for Case Summary
-
In re Isaiah
C.
The Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District affirmed the judgment of the Santa Clara County Superior Court terminating a father’s parental rights. The court found that in order to select adoption as the permanent placement plan for a dependent child the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that it is likely that the child will be adopted. The court also determined that forbearance of termination of parental rights under the statutory sibling exception requires that there must be a sibling relationship and adoption must effect a substantial interference with that relationship.
Cite: 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11418
Click Here for Case Summary
-
In re
Alexander S.
The Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, terminating a mother’s parental rights. The court determined that the applicable statute requires that reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent or guardian is suffering from a mental disability that renders him or her incapable of utilizing those services.
Cite: 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11399 (December 16, 2004)
Click Here for Case Summary
-
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights judgment of the trial court finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s determination that appellant-birthmother could not overcome the preference for adoption of her youngest child by the child’s foster mother under the “best interests test”, as she was unable to demonstrate some “compelling reason” why severing the parent-child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment causing great harm to the child.
Cite: Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 11139 (December 9, 2004)
-
The California Court of Appeals of California affirmed the decision of the Fresno County Superior Court terminating parental rights, holding that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not restrict the court from making a good cause evaluation to overcome the placement preferences of ICWA. In the case, the Indian tribe and biological mother petitioned to place the children with an Indian family but the children’s attorney objected and claimed there was “good cause” under the ICWA to not follow the placement preferences. The juvenile court agreed with the children’s attorney and denied the tribe’s petition and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that state courts had flexibility in determining the placement of Indian children and are not restricted to the federal guidelines on Indian child placement.
Cite: No. F045698, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 1582 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2004)
Click HERE for case summary -
In re Elizabeth W. v. Jackson W.
The California Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions in part the trial court’s orders in relation to a termination of parental rights. Parental rights were terminated by the trial court on recommendation of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, which had found the child’s condition significantly improved after placement with prospective adoptive parents. On appeal, the child’s argued the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) had not been properly followed; the Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded to the dependency court with directions to comply with ICWA notice requirements. ICWA requires the interests of Indian children to be protected and provides for tribe jurisdiction over proceedings involving the custody of an Indian child. Proper procedures under ICWA require notice on a prescribed form given to the proper tribe or Bureau of Indian Affairs, sent by registered mail with return receipt requested. The Court of Appeals found that there was an absence of notice because no return receipt was filed, no response from the proper tribe was filed, and there was no information about the manner in which the reply was sent. The Court of Appeals ruled that after proper procedure is followed if the child is found to not be an Indian child or if the tribe does not respond indicating the child is an Indian child, then the order terminating parental rights shall be reinstated and the child will be freed for adoption.
Cite: No. B172202, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 1150 (Cal. July 21, 2004)
Click HERE for case
-
Irina
Neumann v. Hector Jose Barillas Melgar
The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order, finding the trial court did not comply with its statutory obligations to protect the best interests of the children under California Family Code §§ 7851, 7891, and 7861. Petitioner appealed from the termination of his parental rights pursuant to California Family Code §§ 7822 and 7803, as well as appealing the order denying him a new trial. With the child’s best interest in mind, proof of abandonment must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Due to Hector’s lack of support or communication with his children for the statutory period of one year, the Court affirmed the holding of the trial court that under California Family Code § 7822, there was sufficient evidence to hold that Hector Melgar abandoned the children. The Court of Appeals held that under California Family Code §7894 the petitioner should not have been barred from asserting stipulated matters in his appeal from the judgment. On remand the trial court is instructed to determine whether it should have appointed independent counsel fort the minors. If they find that independent counsel was unnecessary, the trial court shall then consider the evaluator’s report and interview the parties’ oldest minor child. If it is found that appointment of independent counsel was necessary, retrial of the case must be performed.
Cite No: A102872, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1256, July 30, 2004
Click HERE for case
-
In re Gerardo A.
The California Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court, and determined that the department improperly failed to serve its completed request-for-confirmation form, along with ICWA notice, to two vital tribes. The court determined that the department, under the ICWA notice provisions, complied with the letter requirement under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a), but did not satisfy their legal obligation to provide a complete notice of Indian heritage information it possessed to the tribes entitled to such. Due to the department’s omission, the juvenile court erred in finding at the dispositional hearing that ICWA did not pertain to the children in question.
Cite: No. F044674, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1001 (Cal. App. June 24, 2004)
Click HERE for case
-
In re Isayah C.
The Court of Appeals of California reversed and remanded a Marin County Superior Court order that declared child (one of 3 siblings of different fathers) dependent and placed him with an aunt after his father, who had joint legal custody with the mother and physical custody of the child, was arrested for parole violation. The trial court had refused the father’s request that he be permitted to retain custody and send his son to be cared for with relatives until his release. The Appeals Court ruled that the trial court had improperly focused on the impact on reunification efforts with the mother that the child’s being sent to another city would have, rather than on whether there was evidence that the son’s placement with his father would threaten the child’s physical health and protection from future harm. However, because the court had no information on the current situation of the child and his family members, it remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cite: No.A103022, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 720 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 12, 2004)
Web link: Click HERE for case
-
In re Crystalle W.
A California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order terminating parental rights and allowing the child to be adopted by her foster parents, concluding that the trial court is required to consider the sufficiency factual evidence using a clear and convincing standard and if there is substantial evidence to supports its conclusion the determination is not open to review on appeal.
Cite: No. F044469, 2004 WL 944503 (Cal. Ct. App. May 3, 2004)
Web Link: Click HERE for case
-
In re Logan A.
The California Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court's order appointing a guardian ad litem for mother because the court had not advised her of the circumstances surrounding the appointment.
Cite: No. C044396, 2004 WL 309334 (Col. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2004)
Web Link: Click HERE for case
-
In re J.K.
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling terminating parental rights, finding that the notice provision of the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply in the case. The appellate court also concluded that in balancing the strength of the child's relationship with the birth parents to the security of an adoptive family, the evidence weighed strongly in favor of termination of parental rights.
Cite: No. C043702, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 1467 (Cal Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2004)
Web Link: Click HERE for case
-
In re Suzanna L.
The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling regarding termination of the father's parental rights The court held that the notice provision of the Indian Child Welfare Act had been improperly given.
Cite: 2004 Cal. App.Unpub. Lexis 33
Web link: Click HERE for case -
In re Travis D.
The California Court of Appeals dismissed a minor's appeal of an order granting the petition of the Human Services Agency (HSA) for modification of a termination order which purported to prescribe the appropriate process for adoption by a same-sex couple, finding that the underlying issue of the proper procedure for adoption by a same-sex couple was not ripe, thus making the trial court's declaration of the applicable law merely advisory.
Cite: No. C043571, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 151 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2004)
Web link: Click HERE for case
-
Termination of Parental Rights - Appeals of Orders of Termination Rights of Grandparents and Other Biological Relatives
In re T.S.
A Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District affirmed the juvenile court's order terminating a biological father's and mother's parental rights. The court held there was substantial evidence to find the children are "adoptable" by the children's paternal grandparents. The court also found that the grandparents need not undergo a physical examination in order to qualify to adopt the children and that the grandparents' ages (58 and 61) were not legal impediments to the adoption.
Cite: No. C043419, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1801 (Cal Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2003).
Web link: Click HERE for case
-
In re Cheryl M.
The California Court of Appeals denied the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services' petition for a writ of mandate directing the dependency court to vacate its order denying the Department's request for an order removing three children who were living with their aunt/de facto parent from the aunt pending the resolution of the Department's supplemental petition, in which the Department alleged that placement with the aunt was no longer effective in the protection of the children due to the aunt's conviction for two minor offenses concerning improper discipline of her own children. The court explained that removal was not mandatory and the relevant statute did not deprive the dependency court of discretion to allow the children to remain in the aunt's home.
Cite: No. B166181, 2003 WL 22271195 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2003)
Web link: Click HERE for case
-
In re Kyle F.
The California Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's ruling that an unwed father who could have been charged with misdemeanor unlawful sexual intercourse could never qualify as a presumed father. On appeal, the court concluded that neither case law nor statute preclude an 18-year-old unwed father from attempting to demonstrate a full commitment to assume his parental responsibilities toward a child born to a mother who was 16 at the time of conception. The court explained that the trial court misconstrued prior case law by equating "unlawful sexual intercourse" with "nonconsensual sexual intercourse." Thus, while a person who forcibly rapes another should not be afforded constitutional protection in proceedings concerning the adoption of a child conceived during the rape, an unwed father should not be denied the constitutional right to develop a parental relationship with his child when he and the minor mother were relatively close in age and both willingly participated in the act.
Cite: No. F038536, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1512 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2003).
Web link: Click HERE for case
Who May Adopt
Sharon S. v. Superior Court of San Diego County
For years, California courts have permitted "second parent adoptions," or adoptions in which a child born to or adopted by one partner in a non-marital relationship is adopted by the non-biological or non-legal second parent partner with the consent of the biological or adoptive parent and without the forfeiture of that parent's rights and responsibilities. Most such adoptions in the state, whether independent or by public agency placement, utilize forms and procedures devised by the California Department of Social Services ("CDSS"). Thousands of these adoptions have taken place in California.In this case, the same-sex domestic partner of the birth mother of a child conceived through artificial insemination petitioned to adopt the child. The mother had previously borne another child by the same sperm donor; her partner adopted this child through the procedure established for independent "second parent" adoptions. The birth mother consented to her partner's adoption of the second child and, using essentially the same forms as before, signed an "Independent Adoption Placement Agreement" that included a "notice to birth parent" provision stating it would become a permanent and irrevocable consent to adoption. Although the form also contained a provision for relinquishment of birth parent rights, the partners signed an addendum that specifically stated their intent for the birth mother to retain her rights.
Later, after she and her partner split up, the birth mother attempted to block the adoption. She argued that her child's adoption was not authorized because, except in the case of step-parents, California's statutory scheme does not permit an adoption unless the consenting parent relinquishes all parental rights. The trial court rejected this argument and granted the adoption over the birth mother's motion to dismiss, ruling that her consent to the adoption had not been withdrawn within the time period mandated in independent adoption proceedings.
On the birth mother's petition for a writ of mandate, the majority of a divided California appeals court held that § 8617 of the state adoption code, which states that "[t]he birth parents of an adopted child are, from the time of adoption, relieved of all parental duties towards, and all responsibility for, the adopted child and have no right over the child," does not permit second parent adoptions except in the case of step-parent adoptions. The appellate court ordered the trial court to permit the birth mother to withdraw her consent to the adoption. This ruling placed in jeopardy the status of thousands such adoptions previously granted.
On review, the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of independent second parent adoptions granted under the process developed and utilized by CDSS. Citing the rule that adoption statutes must be liberally construed to effect their object and promote justice, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar opined that nothing in the statute, its legislative history, or its function indicates that a birth parent and adoptive parent may not waive the operation of § 8617 and agree to preserve the birth parent's rights in an independent adoption. Disagreeing with the appellate court's conclusion that the statute mandates termination of the birth parents' rights in all independent adoptions, the Court noted the distinction between the jurisdictional essential elements of an adoption under state law -- parental consent (unless parental rights have been terminated), suitable adoptive parent(s), and a judicial finding as to the child's best interest -- and the ordinary consequences of an adoption, which include the termination of the consenting parent's rights and responsibilities.
In its analysis, the Court relied heavily on its decades-old ruling in Marshall v. Marshall, 196 Cal. 761 (1925). In Marshall, the Court concluded that the precursor to § 8617, which also provided for the termination of birth parental rights in adoption, did not bar step-parent adoptions (such adoptions were not recognized by statute at that time). Also important in the Court's reasoning was the fact that California's adoption statutes always have permitted adoption without regard to the marital status of the parties. Thus, although noting the dissent's argument that Marshall was inapposite because it did not involve an unmarried couple or same-sex adoption, the Court found no justification either in the law or in Marshall's language of for treating § 8617 differently than its predecessor.
The Court characterized the dissent's fear that the ruling could lead to new and bizarre family structures as "nonsense." Emphasizing that the decision could not be read as authority for multiple adoptions or other novel scenarios, the Court stated, "Nothing we say in this case can validate an adoption that is not in the child's interest, omits any statutory element, or is in violation of a public policy the Legislature may express."
The birth mother's constitutional claims also failed. The Court held that CDSS, an executive agency, did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers by engaging in legislation in developing the policies and processes for independent second parent adoption, and that the birth mother's due process rights were not violated since it was undisputed she initially consented to the adoption and failed to revoke her consent within the statutory time limit.
Subject to the appellate court's resolution of the mother's fraud claim, which that court did not address because it agreed with her statutory argument, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings that could include finalizing the adoption upon a finding that all administrative and statutory prerequisites have been satisfied.
Cite: Cal., No. S102671, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 5378 (August 4, 2003). Click here for the full decision. -
7/27/2003
Termination of Parental Rights - ProcessIn re Celine R.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's termination of the parents' parental rights and referring the children to the county adoption agency for adoptive placement. The court interpreted the sibling relationship provision as a basis for the court to choose something other than adoption as the preferred permanency plan to determine whether this provision requires the court to consider the interests of all the siblings or only the detriment to the specific child in question and under what circumstances the court must appoint separate counsel for each child. The court held that a court may reject adoption under this sibling relationship provision only if it finds adoption would be detrimental to the child whose welfare is being considered and may not prevent a child from being adopted solely because of the effect the adoption may have on a sibling. The court also concluded that a court may appoint a single attorney to represent all of the siblings unless, at the time of appointment, an actual conflict of interest exists among them or it appears from circumstances specific to the case that it is reasonably likely an actual conflict will arise. Once appointed, a court can relieve counsel from the joint representation only when an actual conflict of interest arises. Finally, the court concluded that any error in the trial court's refusal to appoint separate counsel was harmless because it was not reasonably probable the result would have been different.
Cite: No S111138, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 4422 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Jul. 7, 2003)
Web link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S111138. -
7/1/2003
Navajo Nation v. Norris
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to permit the adoption of a Native American child outside the Nation. The court held that when a Native American child is domiciled outside a reservation, the case is subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of both a tribal court and state court and that because the Native American couple moved off the reservation and objected to the application of ICWA, the adoption finalized by the state court would be upheld.
Cite: No. 01-35041, 2003 US App Lexis 11448 (9th Cir. Jun. 9, 2003)
Web link: Click HERE for case -
6/3/2003
In re N.M.: The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision to extend reunification services where the child was removed from the parents' custody due to allegations that both parents abused controlled substances. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the statutory eighteen-month limitations period for reunification services began to run on the date the child was initially removed from parental custody; and (2) there was no evidence to warrant an extension beyond the statutory eighteen-month period. Click here to read. -
6/3/2003
In re Tierra W.: The California Court of Appeals reversed the order of the juvenile court adopting a permanent plan for a dependent child that included appointment of a paternal aunt as the child's guardian and granting the child's mother visitation, holding that the trial court erred in delegating control over the mother's visitation to the guardian, as it is improper to delegate control over visitation to a private person who is not accountable to the court. Click here to read.4/29/2003
In re Victoria H. A California Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision to remove a dependent child from the care of the maternal grandparents and to terminate their visitation rights. The court held that the grandparents failed to provide any authority to support reconsideration either of the placement, because the State was under no statutory duty to grant them preference as potential adoptive parents, or the State's finding that their home was not suitable as a permanent placement alternative. The grandparents also failed to provide support for their claim that the State may not deny visitation based upon a recommendation of the child's therapist.Cite: Nos. E032171 & E032447, 2003 WL 1735550 (Cal. Ct. App. April 2, 2003).
Web link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/E032171.DOC
4/29/2003 In re Adoption of Danis G. A California Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a petition to terminate the father's parental rights, holding that under the applicable statute the father must have willfully failed to communicate and support the child for one year. The court concluded that the father's failure to support the child was not willful because no demand for support was made and the father was told that his financial support was not necessary.
Cite: No. B161157, 2003 WL 1880154 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2003)
Web link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B161157.DOC
-
4/1/2003
In re Albert A.: The California Court of Appeals issued an extraordinary writ directing the lower court to vacate its order terminating reunification services for the biological father, concluding that the Kern County Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to implement the incarcerated father's case plan. Cite: No. F042093, 2003 WL 1384032 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2003). Click here to read.
-
3/18/2003
In re Angel P: The California Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's order terminating the birthmother's parental rights, holding that by failing to raise an objection in the initial dependency proceedings, which led to the removal of the children from her custody, the birthmother had in effect waived her right to appeal the sufficiency of the findings in the termination hearing. Click here to read.
-
3/18/2003
In re W.L. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's orders terminating the parents' parental rights and selecting adoption as a permanent plan, concluding, in part, that the father lacked standing to argue that the court erred by not appointing counsel for the maternal grandmother, as a de facto parent, and by failing to inform her that the court had the discretion to appoint counsel to represent her and she had the right to call and cross-examine witnesses. Cite: No. D040682, 2003 WL 463119 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2003). Web link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D040682.PDF
-
3/18/2003
In re Josue G. The California District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the juvenile court's order determining legal guardianship to be the appropriate plan because the child was not likely to adopted based solely on the age of the child's caretakers, holding that, in determining whether a child is adoptable, the proper focus is on the child and not the adoptive parents and that a prospective adoptive parent's willingness to adopt indicates that the minor will likely be adopted either by the prospective adoptive parent or by some other family. Cite: No. B158488, 2003 WL 253933 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2003). Click here to read.
-
3/18/2003
In re Monica D. and Robert L. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded (for the second time) the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights. The court found that the Contra Costa Social Services Department failed to meet the second step necessary to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act when they neglected to provide the juvenile court with a copy of the notice sent out to the tribal councils. The court also found that the Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the children would be adopted within a reasonable amount of time. Cite: Nos. A099079, A098500, 2003 WL 429496 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2003)
Click here to read.
-
2/18/2003
In re Darlice C. In ruling on a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus ordering the juvenile court to vacate its order terminating her parental rights, which she based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the termination proceedings, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District issued an order directing the county department of health and human services (DHHS) to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The court rejected the conclusion reached in a case decided by the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal that an order terminating parental rights may only be reviewed by direct appeal, a ruling on which DHHS had based its argument that such orders are not subject to collateral attack in habeas corpus proceedings. The appellate court's ruling also required the habeas claim to be adjudicated before the finalization of two pending consolidated appeals of the order terminating the mother's parental rights.
Cite: 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Click here to read.
-
2/11/2003
In re Jasmine H. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights. The court explained that the Department of Children and Family Services erred in assuming that the mother was unfit because of an extensive past criminal history, even though she had successfully cared for her children for many years. The court further stated that the lower court and DCFS should have carefully considered "the harm that children may suffer when they are separated from those they have come to identify as their parents."
-
12/17/2002
In re Jacob.S: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of a mother to three of her children, holding that the mother's argument for the "sibling bond exception" did not apply. The court also dismissed the mother's argument there was no evidence to support a finding that the child was adoptable, holding that such argument was not ripe for review as the trial court has not yet decided that issue. Cite: No. G030585, 2002 WL 31859659 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2002).
- 12/17/2002
In re Stuart S.: The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's termination of reunification services, but struck the court's approval of "another planned permanent living arrangement" and amended the order to an approval of long-term foster care as the child's current permanency plan, concluding that the state did not satisfy the evidentiary burden under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
No link available: Case: No. C039506, 2002 WL 31752190 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2002)
12/17/2002
In re Megan S.: The Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's order terminating parental rights and finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply because although the sisters had bonded there was no evidence the child would suffer a detriment if the sister's relationship were severed.
Click here to read.
- 12/17/2002
In re Michael J.: The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the orders of the juvenile court terminating parental rights, holding that a juvenile court order may be challenged, modified, or set aside under section 388 if the petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that new evidence or changed circumstances exists and the proposed change would promote the best interest of the child.
Click here to read.
- 11/26/02
Kim T. v. Superior Court Los Angeles County: The Court of Appeals granted a mother's petition for writ of mandate seeking review of the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services with her children, holding that receipt by the parent of the social worker's status report 10 days prior to dependency proceedings is fundamentally mandatory and obligatory in order to ensure fairness and reliability and that failure to so provide the report is reversible error per se absent a waiver of the report.
Click here to read.
Regrettably, the
following decisions no longer have links that are active.
If you need more detail contact the Judicial Council for details on the decision.
- 11/26/02
In re O.S.: The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a father's petition for writ of habeas corpus following the trial court's decision terminating his parental rights. The court held that the father had a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during the termination proceedings even though he was an "alleged father" and that the counsel appointed to him was deficient and this deficiency was prejudicial to him.
- 11/14/02
In re Catherine H.: The Fourth District Court of Appeals partially reversed the lower courts decision denying biological mother's request for a contested hearing on mother's request for custody, holding that a noncustodial parent seeking custody after the child has been removed from the custody of a predependency guardian has standing to request a contested dispositional hearing and to appear, to be heard, and to present evidence.
- 11/14/02
In re Amber M.: The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's decision terminating parental rights, concluding that the trial court erred in declining to apply the statutory exception to termination of parental rights where the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship, and the court failed to consider the long-term effect termination of parental rights would have on the children.
- 11/14/02
In Re JW: The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court's denial of counsel for a mother appealing the termination of her parental rights. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the statute requiring an appointment of counsel for indigent parents applied to proceedings involving children not dependents of the juvenile court.
-
10/29/2002
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the juvenile court's order terminating mother's parental rights for failure to comply with ICWA, instructing juvenile court to comply with ICWA by providing notice of the termination proceedings to the tribes, and stating that, if no tribe responds, the termination of parental rights is to be reinstated.
-
10/10/2002
Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court of Fresno County's order terminating a father's parental rights to his daughter. The court held that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to show it used due diligence to locate the father, thus depriving him of his due process rights. The court also held that the facts were sufficient to establish that the father was entitled to "presumed father status", rather than the "alleged father status" designated by the Department of Children and Family Services.
-
10/8/2002
Court of Appeals granted the public defender's petition for a writ of mandate, holding that public defender was required to be relieved from representation of minor siblings when an actual conflict of interest arose among the minors.
-
10/8/2002
The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's orders granting grandparents de facto parent status but denying them visitation, holding that court's delay in determining their de facto parental status until after selection and implementation hearing did not result in denial of grandparents' due process rights and that the juvenile court did not have the authority to grant grandparents visitation.
- 10/8/2002
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment terminating parental rights and denying a request for continuance and setting of the matter for contested hearing. The mother and her counsel did not receive a copy of the report prepared and submitted by the DCFS until the morning of the hearing despite the mandate that the report be served at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The court held that the failure to provide timely service of the DCFS report to the mother constituted a denial of due process.
- 10/8/2002
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of a grandmother's petition to receive placement of her grandson and his half-brother who were of American Indian heritage. The Court of Appeals held that the decision was in the best interests of the children and that the relative placement preferences of the Indian Child Welfare Act could not be constitutionally applied in this case.
-
10/8/2002
Appellate Court rules on sibling contact issues and termination of parental rights. States that new sibling legislation cannot prevent TPR and adoption for a third sib who has had no contact with an intact sib pair.
- 10/4/2002
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's orders terminating a mother's parental rights due to substance abuse problems and freeing the child for adoption despite the absence of an appointed guardian ad litem for the child.
- 9/26/2002
Second District Court of Appeal granted a birth mother's petition for a writ of mandamus concluding that she was denied due process when she was not provided with a status report at least ten days before a hearing on dependency. The court applied both the "promotes test" and the "penalties test" to determine that the ten day requirement was mandatory and failure to provide the mother or mother's counsel of the report violated her due process rights.
-
9/26/2002
Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate ordering the juvenile court to vacate its order declaring relinquishment of a dependent child to a private adoption agency to be invalid and to hold a new hearing to determine if the mother's parental control should be limited so as to make the relinquishment invalid.
As a service to CAAA members and the Adoption community:
You can research existing statutes by
visiting the LAW LIBRARY. Once there, select "Welfare and
Institutions"
or the "Family Code" and enter the subject you're looking for (e.g.
Permanency Planning Hearing).
Click "Search" and you're there! (remember to hit BACK on your browser a
couple of times to return to this page):
Click here to visit the Law Library
SEND THEM MAIL and CALL THEM!
You can look up phone and email addresses
of members of the following legislatures:
|
back to the
top
Thanks for Visiting us! |
| ©
1998-2006,
California Association of
Adoption Agencies Developed, maintained and updated by Placenet.net L.L.C. |