El Dorado County Health & Human Services Agency v. J.S.
230 Cal. App. 4th 1183
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Two children (ages 6 and 8) were removed after parents’ homelessness and relapse to methamphetamine use; prior reunification services had been provided in 2009 and parental rights to a sibling had been terminated.
- Juvenile court bypassed reunification services under Welfare & Institutions Code §361.5(b) (parents denied services) and set a §366.26 adoption hearing.
- Parents filed §388 petitions shortly before the §366.26 hearing seeking modification to obtain reunification services, alleging changed circumstances (sobriety, treatment, employment) and that reunification was in the children’s best interests.
- At the combined hearing the juvenile court required parents to prove by clear and convincing evidence that reunification services were in the children’s best interests (instead of preponderance), denied the §388 petitions, found the children adoptable, rejected the parental-benefit exception, and terminated parental rights.
- Appellate court reversed: it held the court applied the wrong burden of proof to the §388 petitions, found ICWA notice/inquiry was inadequately documented, and remanded for the juvenile court to apply the proper standard and to resolve ICWA compliance before reinstating or re-denying termination orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden of proof for §388 petitions to modify a bypass-of-services order based on §361.5(b)(11) and (b)(13) | Parents: preponderance of the evidence governs §388 petitions (changed circumstances + best interests). | Agency/court: clear and convincing should apply because bypass was originally found by clear and convincing proof. | Preponderance applies to §388 petitions modifying bypass orders based on (b)(11) or (b)(13); court abused discretion by imposing clear-and-convincing. Case remanded for reconsideration under correct standard. |
| Whether the denial of §388 petitions was supported on the merits | Parents: they showed changed circumstances and best interests favor reunification. | Agency: evidence did not support modification; permanency/adoptability counseled against services. | Court did not decide merits on appeal; reversal required because wrong standard was used—juvenile court must reassess credibility and weigh evidence under preponderance. |
| ICWA compliance and notice to tribes | Parents: Agency and court failed to adequately inquire/notice; Blackfoot/Blackfeet confusion and missing maternal ancestry info required further inquiry/notice. | Agency: sent notices to Cherokee tribes for father; argued lack of prejudice. | Reversal: Agency and court failed to document/perform required ICWA inquiry/notice; remand for full inquiry, notice (if needed), and court finding whether ICWA applies. |
| Beneficial-parental-relationship exception to termination (§366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) | Parents: regular visits and emotional bonds show exception applies—termination would be detrimental. | Agency: bond not sufficiently strong/positive to outweigh need for permanency; parental conduct and inconsistency undermined attachment. | Held: appellate court upheld juvenile court’s factual finding that exception did not apply (benefit of relationship did not outweigh permanence of adoption). This issue would be reconsidered only if remand results in different procedural findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby Boy H., 63 Cal.App.4th 470 (1998) (discusses legislative shift when §361.5(b) circumstances justify bypassing reunification services)
- Renee J. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 735 (2001) (explains statutory framework replacing general reunification presumption when §361.5(b) applies)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (standard of review and discretion in modification petitions under §388)
- In re A.M., 217 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2013) (held §361.5(c) clear-and-convincing burden applies to some §388 challenges; discussed and distinguished in this opinion)
- In re Daijah T., 83 Cal.App.4th 666 (2000) (describes §388 prima facie showing requirements)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (frames the §366.26 beneficial-parental-relationship exception balancing test)