Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Natasha B.
242 Cal. App. 4th 976
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- T.G., born June 2013, was detained June 2014 after reports that mother (Natasha B.) suffered from untreated mental-health issues, substance use, cognitive delays, housing instability, and episodes of intoxication while caring for the infant.
- Mother previously had two older daughters (C.B. and J.M.) removed in March 2012; reunification services were terminated in June 2013 and parental rights were terminated in July 2013. Those sibling-termination orders were later appealed in consolidated proceedings (which this court upheld separately).
- At T.G.’s November 2014 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found T.G. dependent, bypassed reunification services for mother under Welfare & Institutions Code § 361.5(b)(10) and (b)(11), and set a § 366.26 permanency hearing.
- Mother did not object to the bypass order in the juvenile court and did not seek timely extraordinary writ review of the setting order, but timely appealed the ultimate termination of parental rights after the § 366.26 hearing.
- Mother argued on appeal that (1) the juvenile court improperly relied on the sibling termination orders to bypass reunification because those orders (or a related § 388 denial) were on appeal and thus not final, and (2) any forfeiture of the issue should be excused as a due process violation.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding bypass under § 361.5(b)(10) was valid and supported by substantial evidence; it declined to rely on forfeiture/doctrine-of-finality arguments because the statutory text and precedent allowed the predicate sibling termination order to support bypass when it had been entered prior to the later disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Natasha) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 361.5(b)(10) may be applied where the prior sibling termination order was on appeal | The juvenile court may deny reunification under § 361.5(b)(10) so long as an order terminating sibling services was entered before disposition of the later child | Bypass was improper because the sibling termination and related § 388 rulings were on appeal and not final, so they could not serve as a predicate for bypass | Held: § 361.5(b)(10) may be applied where the prior termination order was entered before the later disposition; a pending appeal of related motions did not undermine the use of that prior order to support bypass |
| Whether mother’s failure to object/writ-seek forfeits appellate review or must be excused for due process | Forfeiture rules and requirement to seek writ review preserve finality and expedient proceedings; relief not warranted absent fundamental deprivation | Mother contends legal error was fundamental and deprived her of due process, so forfeiture should be excused | Held: Court need not resolve whether forfeiture should be excused because bypass under § 361.5(b)(10) was substantively correct and supported by evidence; forfeiture principles and writ rules nevertheless noted as generally applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (explaining forfeiture and limited circumstances for excusing failure to object)
- In re Meranda P., 56 Cal.App.4th 1143 (postdispositional orders are final if not timely challenged; cannot be collaterally attacked later)
- In re Harmony B., 125 Cal.App.4th 831 (§ 361.5(b)(10) does not require a temporal lapse or that the sibling’s reunification outcome be final before bypass may be applied)
- Cheryl P. v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 87 (standard of review and gravity of bypass decisions)
- In re Tabitha W., 143 Cal.App.4th 811 (orders issued at hearings where a § 366.26 setting is made must be reviewed by extraordinary writ)
- In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (purpose of reunification services and statutory rationale for bypass)