El Dorado County Department of Human Services v. I.R.
226 Cal. App. 4th 201
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2011 the El Dorado County Department of Human Services removed minors I.R. (born 2011) and K.R. (born 2010) from parental custody due to parents’ untreated mental-health issues, past neglectful incidents (including unsupervised bathtub incidents), and failure to benefit from services; the court initially ordered family maintenance and later reunification services.
- After continued safety concerns and failures to reunify, services were terminated in December 2012 and a section 366.26 permanency hearing was set; the minors had been placed together in a foster home since November 2012 and were described as healthy and developmentally on track.
- A baby sister was born in April 2013 and placed in the same foster home; parents had separate visits with the infant and inconsistent, often sporadic visits with the older minors following termination of services.
- At the combined section 366.26 / section 388 hearing (Oct. 2013) the juvenile court found the minors likely adoptable but concluded the sibling exception applied — that severing the sibling bond with the infant would be detrimental — and ordered long-term foster care "for the present time," setting a renewed hearing in six months.
- On appeal the Department and the minors agreed the juvenile court relied on irrelevant facts (parents’ efforts to reunify with the infant) and that the exceptions to adoption and the selection of long-term foster care were not supported by substantial evidence; the Court of Appeal reversed and directed termination of parental rights and placement for adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could select a hybrid/temporary long-term foster-care plan and reset section 366.26 based on the infant sibling’s pending case | Court may delay/perpetuate status quo to await outcome of infant’s case and parents’ reunification efforts | Department/minors: statutory options are limited; court exceeded jurisdiction and delayed permanency | Reversed: court abused discretion; selection of "long-term foster care for the present time" and resetting the hearing was outside statutory limits and relied on irrelevant facts |
| Whether the beneficial-parental-relationship exception to adoption applied | Parents: regular visits and positive parent–child contact show continuing benefit outweighs adoption | Department/minors: visits were sporadic, not ‘‘regular’’; no evidence of a parental bond outweighing adoption benefits | Held no substantial evidence of either required prong (regular visitation and benefit outweighing adoption); exception not met |
| Whether the sibling relationship exception to adoption applied | Parents: minors had developed a close, caring relationship with the infant such that severance would be detrimental | Department/minors: siblings’ interactions were minimal; infant too young to reciprocate; social workers saw no significant sibling bond | Held no substantial evidence of a sibling relationship so significant that termination would be detrimental; exception not met |
| Remedy when the court finds a child likely adoptable but improperly selected a nonstatutory interim plan | Court: maintain status quo pending related proceedings | Department/minors: statutory preference for prompt permanency; if exceptions fail, court must terminate parental rights and select adoption | Court of Appeal directed reversal of orders, vacated the renewed hearing and long-term foster-care selection, and ordered termination of parental rights and placement for adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (emphasizes child’s need for prompt permanency and limits on delay)
- In re Lisa R., 13 Cal.3d 636 (1975) (juvenile court’s powers are limited to those granted by statute)
- In re Baby Girl M., 135 Cal.App.4th 1528 (2006) (court must avoid relying on irrelevant factors outside the statutory framework)
- In re Angelia P., 28 Cal.3d 908 (1981) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (scope of beneficial-parental-relationship exception)
- In re Brandon C., 71 Cal.App.4th 1530 (1999) (definition of “regular visitation” under beneficial-parental-relationship exception)