Alameda County Social Services Agency v. S.C.
190 Cal. App. 4th 1470
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition in December 2004 alleging failure to protect and lack of support and Grace was placed with her maternal great-grandmother.
- Grace and Angelo were ultimately placed under guardianship by maternal relatives after a 2009 settlement; mother and Angelo’s father waived reunification and the court found guardianship in the minors’ best interests.
- An addendum recommended dismissal of dependency in May 2009; postpermanency hearings occurred September 4 and October 30, 2009 with evidence of mother’s progress and ongoing visitation.
- Social workers reported mother’s substance abuse recovery, compliance with visitation, and weekly psychotherapy for the minors and guardians; visits often occurred at a fast-food restaurant with scheduling tensions.
- The September 4, 2009 order maintained a detailed visitation plan; after hearings, the court dismissed dependency and maintained the visitation order as the permanent order.
- Mother appealed asserting (i) abuse of discretion in dismissal, (ii) improper delegation of visitation decisions to guardians/therapist, and (iii) ICWA notice issues; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was dependency dismissal proper? | Mother argues exceptional circumstances warranted continued dependency. | Guardians andAgency show guardians cooperated; visits remained viable without dependency. | No abuse; dismissal affirmed. |
| Did the visitation order impermissibly delegate discretion to guardians or therapist? | Mother contends guardians/therapist control visits without court oversight. | Court-approved detailed order allowed flexibility and included safeguards. | Not improper delegation; order permissible. |
| Did ICWA require notice in this proceeding? | Mother asserts ICWA notice duties were triggered. | Agency had no duty to provide ICWA notice under the circumstances presented. | No ICWA duty identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Twighla T., 4 Cal.App.4th 799 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1992) (no abuse when guardian cooperated with visits)
- In re K.D., 124 Cal.App.4th 1013 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (relative guardian requires dismissal absent exceptional circumstances)
- In re Joshua S., 106 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (financial need context; not controlling here)
- In re Rebecca S., 181 Cal.App.4th 1310 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (guardians may control visitations but court must not delegate ongoing decision-making)
- In re M.R., 132 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2005) (frequency/duration set by court; guardians may not have veto over visitation)
- In re Hunter S., 142 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (therapist veto over visitation improper)
- In re Nicholas B., 88 Cal.App.4th 1126 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2001) (no unfettered therapist authority over visitation)
- In re Donnovan J., 58 Cal.App.4th 1474 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1997) (no condition of visitation on therapist approval)