Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Paula T.
232 Cal. App. 4th 1284
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- R.T., born drug-exposed, was removed at birth and placed with Victoria (nonrelative who cared for R.T.’s half‑siblings); parents identified two paternal aunts for placement soon after removal.
- Agency conducted only cursory home safety inspections for the paternal aunts, told them it favored the existing placement, and did not perform a full statutory relative-placement evaluation under Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.3.
- At the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing (Aug 27, 2012) the court adopted the agency’s recommendation to deny parents reunification services and ordered permanent placement with Victoria without waiting for completion of the relatives’ home studies.
- Aunt and uncle filed a § 388 motion (Nov 2012) to modify placement for relatives; hearings stretched from Feb–Sept 2013 and the court denied the motion in Sept 2013, finding the relative preference inapplicable and emphasizing the child’s bond with Victoria.
- Parents executed relinquishment forms (Feb 2013) naming the paternal relatives as designated adoptive parents; the agency refused to accept the relinquishment unless the parents designated Victoria and her husband.
- The juvenile court later terminated parental rights (Jan 9, 2014). The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding legal errors requiring new agency reports and determinations on (1) whether to accept the parents’ designated relinquishment and (2) whether relative placement under § 361.3 is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency / Respondent) | Defendant's Argument (Parents / Relatives) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency and court applied relative-placement preference (§ 361.3) | Agency: placement with Victoria was reasonable; NREFM status and sibling presence justified placement; relative preference was not controlling post‑disposition | Relatives/parents: agency ignored statutory mandate to give relatives preferential consideration and failed to perform required evaluation | Court: Reversed — agency and court failed to apply § 361.3, did not give relatives preferential consideration, and must evaluate relatives under statutory criteria |
| Whether juvenile court properly denied § 388 modification to consider relatives | Agency: initial placement reasonable; post‑dispositional preference inapplicable; stability/bond with current caretakers control | Relatives: timely § 388 motion seeking correction of pre‑disposition denial of preference; relief appropriate because error occurred at disposition | Court: Reversed — court applied incorrect standard, should have required agency to evaluate relatives and then reviewed recommendation for abuse of discretion |
| Whether agency may refuse parents’ designated relinquishment and whether court can review that decision | Agency: has discretion to accept or refuse relinquishment (executive function); administrative grievance available | Parents: agency’s refusal was summary and lacked a reasoned best‑interest assessment; juvenile court may review agency action in dependency context | Court: Agency discretion exists but is reviewable for abuse of discretion by juvenile court; agency must reassess and document child’s best interests before refusing relinquishment |
| Appropriate remedy after these procedural errors | Agency: discretionary placement decisions and administrative processes control; judicial relief limited | Parents/relatives: reversal and remand for new evaluations and decision on relinquishment and relative placement | Court: Reversed termination of parental rights and remanded for agency to reevaluate relinquishment and relative placement, then for court review under proper standards |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (court must consider statutory factors when evaluating relative placement)
- Cesar V. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (relatives entitled to be "first placement" considered under § 361.3)
- Department of Social Services v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.App.4th 721 (agency placement decisions are reviewable for abuse of discretion)
- In re R.S., 179 Cal.App.4th 1137 (agency acceptance of designated relinquishment conditioned on agency’s ability to place and best‑interest assessment)
- In re Michael E., 213 Cal.App.4th 670 (distinguishing NREFM placement and scope of relative preference)
- In re Esperanza C., 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 (agency executive decisions remain subject to juvenile‑court review for abuse of discretion)
- In re Shirley K., 140 Cal.App.4th 65 (standards for reviewing § 388 relief and agency oversight role)