58 Cal.App.5th 973
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- July 2018: Monterey County filed a §300(b)(1) petition after mother twice drove while under the influence with her 4‑year‑old son, A.G.; child was detained and placed in foster care.
- Mother received reunification services; at the 12‑month review (Sept. 2019) services were terminated and a §366.26 selection/implementation hearing was set.
- At the initial §366.26 hearing (Jan. 14, 2020) mother sought a contested hearing to invoke the parental‑relationship exception to adoption; the court required a written offer of proof and granted two weeks to file one.
- Mother filed a written offer naming nine witnesses and describing proposed testimony about regular contact and the parent‑child relationship; the Department and the child opposed as vague and partially inadmissible.
- On Jan. 28, 2020 the juvenile court found the written proffer legally insufficient, denied a contested hearing, found the child adoptable, and terminated mother’s parental rights.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for the juvenile court to reconsider the legal sufficiency of mother’s offer of proof, holding (1) an offer need only address regular contact and the beneficial relationship (not the third balancing prong), (2) offers must be specific but should be liberally construed where regular contact is undisputed, and (3) the court may allow amendment and must explain deficiencies if it again denies a hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May the juvenile court condition a contested §366.26 hearing on an offer of proof (due process)? | Yes — court may require an offer to prevent futile or irrelevant contested hearings. | No — conditioning the right to a hearing violates due process. | Permissible: a court may require an offer of proof before ordering a contested §366.26 hearing (Jeanette V., Tamika T.). |
| 2) What must the offer of proof address (scope)? | The offer must prove all three components of the parental‑relationship exception, including the discretionary ‘‘compelling reason’’ balancing prong. | Offer need only address the first two components: regular visitation/contact and existence of a beneficial parent‑child relationship. | Offer need only address regular contact and the beneficial relationship; the discretionary third balancing prong is for the court to evaluate at hearing. |
| 3) How specific must an offer be and how should courts treat borderline proffers? | Must be specific and admissible; courts may reject vague or partly inadmissible proffers. | Proffer here was sufficient in scope; where contact is undisputed the proffer should be liberally construed and a hearing granted. | Offer must identify witnesses and the substance of their testimony (Tamika T./Semsch/Bowman), but when regular contact is undisputed courts should construe proffers liberally, allow amendment, and be cautious in denying hearings. Case remanded for further consideration. |
| 4) If denial of a contested hearing was error, was it harmless? | Any error harmless because proffer would not have established a parental role outweighing adoption. | Not harmless — live testimony could affect credibility and the court’s discretionary balancing. | Not harmless on this record; appellate court remanded because the effect of live testimony cannot be assessed from the paper record. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tamika T., 97 Cal.App.4th 1114 (discusses requiring and defining sufficiency of offers of proof at §366.26)
- In re Jeanette V., 68 Cal.App.4th 811 (upholds court's discretion to require an offer of proof before contested §366.26 hearing)
- In re Grace P., 8 Cal.App.5th 605 (counsels caution: where regular contact is clear, deny contested hearing only sparingly and construe offers liberally)
- In re Caden C., 34 Cal.App.5th 87 (describes the three component determinations of the parental‑relationship exception)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (explains that the exception requires a significant positive emotional attachment and parental role)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (states legislative preference for adoption where children are adoptable)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents have fundamental liberty interest in custody; due process applies)
- United Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Reeder Dev. Corp., 57 Cal.App.3d 282 (offer of proof must consist of evidentiary material, not bare facts)
- Bowman v. Wyatt, 186 Cal.App.4th 286 (offer of proof must set forth actual evidence and foundational facts)
- T.S. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.5th 503 (construed offers liberally where proffer included specific witness observations; denial of hearing may not be harmless)