E.P. v. Stephen P.
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Stephen P. (father) appealed a trial court order terminating his parental rights to S.P. under Family Code 7827 (mental disability).
- Mother and father adopted the minor; father’s mental illness worsened when he stopped taking medication, harming family dynamics.
- Father faced restraining orders and incidents, including an unannounced visit leading to a skull fracture of the minor during a struggle.
- Mother moved out of state, obtained sole custody, and initially petitioned to terminate father’s rights under 7827; a prior stipulation required father to undergo treatment.
- After deterioration and a reinstated petition, the court-commissioned assessments by two psychiatrists and a psychologist concluded father was mentally disabled under 7827 and terminable; court terminated his parental rights.
- The minor advocated termination, and the appellate court affirmed, addressing forfeiture of 7850/7851 issues, applicability to 7827, and best-interests/least-detrimental alternatives
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father forfeited 7850/7851 issues by not raising them below | Father (P.) argues these sections required social worker investigation/report | Mother (D.) and court allowed non-application of mandatory social worker report | Yes, forfeiture; issues not raised below procedurally barred |
| Applicability of sections 7850/7851 to mother's petition under 7827 | P. contends sections 7850/7851 apply to any termination petition | D. argues 7827 is separate, discretionary, and does not require 7850/7851 | Sections 7850/7851 not applicable to 7827 petition; not required; discretionary testimony allowed |
| Prejudice from absence of 7850/7851 investigation/report | P. asserts per se reversible error due to missing report | D. argues harmless-error analysis applies; no prejudice shown | No reversible error; no reasonable probability of different result |
| Substantial evidence supports best-interests determination | P. believes termination not in minor’s best interests given potential for rehabilitation | D. asserts minor’s stability and safety require termination given ongoing disability | Substantial evidence supports best interests favoring termination |
| No less drastic alternatives were required to be found expressly | P. argues court should have found no viable less drastic options | D. contends evidence shows no feasible alternatives; termination appropriate | Substantial evidence supports finding that no viable less drastic alternatives were reasonably available |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Victoria M., 207 Cal.App.3d 1317 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (terminating rights requires grave justification; earlier standards applied)
- In re Cody W., 31 Cal.App.4th 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (least-detrimental-alternative evolution in termination cases)
- In re Angelique C., 113 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (early articulation of least-detrimental alternative concept)
- Goddard, In re Marriage of, 33 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2004) (procedural errors are generally non-jurisdictional; harmless-error framework)
- Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 247 (Cal. 2009) (forfeiture/waiver principles; encourage raising errors below)
- In re Linda W., 209 Cal.App.3d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (illustrates non-jurisdictional nature of some procedural errors)
- Neumann v. Melgar, 121 Cal.App.4th 152 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (failure to consider evaluator’s report can be prejudicial)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (discusses forfeiture vs. waiver terminology)
- Crail v. Blakely, 8 Cal.3d 744 (Cal. 1973) (standard of review in appellate consideration of evidence)