Almeda County Social Services Agency v. Shannon M.
221 Cal. App. 4th 282
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Shannon M. was a juvenile dependent in Alameda County since 2006; the court placed her in foster care and pursued various permanency plans with emancipation/independent living goals.
- She aged out (turned 18) while under a caretaker arrangement with her mother, who later abandoned her and became unavailable.
- The Alameda County Social Services Agency sought termination of jurisdiction under §364 (conditions justifying continued supervision) rather than applying CFCS Act provisions for nonminor dependents.
- The CFCS Act (2012) added extended foster care for certain nonminor dependents under §11400(v) and revised §391 and §303 to govern termination/new petitions.
- Shannon argued the termination decision should be governed by §391 (best interests) applicable to all nonminors, not §364; the trial court terminated jurisdiction under §364.
- The appellate court remanded to apply the appropriate standard (§391) to all nonminor dependents unless specifically excluded by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs termination of dependency jurisdiction for nonminors? | Shannon—§391 governs all nonminors regardless of placement. | Agency—termination under §364; §391 not universally applicable. | §391 governs nonminors except for specific subsections; remand to apply §391 as the controlling standard. |
| Does §391 apply to all nonminor dependents or only to §11400(v) nonminors? | §391 broadly applies to all nonminors. | §391 limited to particular nonminors; §11400(v) subset governs some provisions. | §391 applies to all nonminors facing termination, with subsets §c and §d detailing specific groups. |
| Is the court obligated to consider best interests under §391 for termination? | Best interests standard governs termination for all nonminors under §391. | Agency argued wrong standard; sought termination under §364. | The best interests analysis under §391 applies; remand for proper §391-based review. |
| Was the trial court’s reliance on §364 invited error? | No estoppel due to pre-hearing statements by the parties. | Trial court relied on §364 as controlling; arguments at hearing supported that. | Not invited error; record shows dispute over the applicable standard; remand warranted. |
| Does CFCS Act funding status affect the ability to terminate jurisdiction under §391? | Lack of federal funding is not a basis to terminate jurisdiction. | Cost considerations could justify terminating jurisdiction. | CFCS Act does not require termination solely due to funding; proper §391 analysis required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Robert L., 68 Cal.App.4th 789 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (best interests/guides continuation of jurisdiction past majority when not in §11400(v))
- In re Holly H., 104 Cal.App.4th 1324 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (apply §391 standard; continuation must be justified by ongoing risk or needs)
- In re Tamika C., 131 Cal.App.4th 1153 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (requires best interests when terminating jurisdiction for 18-year-olds)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (discusses permanency planning standards and transition after services)
- In re D.R., 155 Cal.App.4th 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (extends termination analysis to nonminor context; pre-CFCS guidance)
- In re Francecisco, 16 Cal.App.3d 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (historical standard for termination of jurisdiction before 21)