91 Cal.App.5th 145
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- C.P., born 2011, was removed from mother in May 2017 after sexual abuse by a maternal uncle; grandparents had long provided much of the child’s care and developed a parental-like bond.
- Grandparents began Resource Family Approval (RFA) early; a 1991 misdemeanor conviction of grandfather triggered a disqualification notice under prior law.
- In a prior appeal (In re C.P.), the court held that when a caregiver has a parental relationship due process requires individualized review of exemption requests; the juvenile court later found grandparents had such a relationship.
- Grandparents received child‑specific RFA in July 2021 and the child was placed with them; CFS initially thought adoption likely but the adoptions unit later reported the grandparents would not pass an adoption home study because of “historical concerns” (apparently the grandfather’s old conviction) and recommended guardianship.
- At the March 1, 2022 section 366.26 hearing the juvenile court followed CFS’s recommendation and appointed grandparents as legal guardians rather than terminating parental rights for adoption; grandparents appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the guardianship order, holding grandparents are eligible to adopt (child‑specific RFA suffices and grandfather’s conviction does not bar adoption under current law and In re C.P.) and directed a new section 366.26 hearing consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal guardianship | Grandparents: their parental‑like, fundamental interest gives standing | CFS: grandparents are like de facto parents and lack standing to challenge permanent plan | Court: grandparents have standing because their fundamental interest in parenting the child is legally cognizable and was previously recognized by the juvenile court |
| Whether adoption must be selected over guardianship at §366.26 | Grandparents: no statutory exception to adoption applies; they are willing and eligible to adopt | CFS: an exception applies because grandparents allegedly cannot adopt (RFA child‑specific limits, no adoptive home study, grandfather’s disqualifying conviction) | Court: adoption should have been preferred; the record does not support an exception to adoption |
| Effect of child‑specific RFA on adoptive eligibility | Grandparents: child‑specific RFA makes them eligible to adopt that child without additional adoptive home study | CFS: child‑specific approval is more limited and does not equal adoptive approval | Held: child‑specific RFA is a form of resource family approval that substitutes for prior adoption home‑study approvals and makes them eligible to adopt the specified child |
| Whether grandfather’s 1991 conviction disqualifies adoption | Grandparents: due process and statutory changes mean grandfather is eligible and an exemption must be granted | CFS: Family Code/Health & Safety rules bar approval for adoptive placement when certain offenses exist | Held: grandfather’s decades‑old misdemeanor does not bar adoption; In re C.P. required individualized review and Senate Bill 354 narrowed/clarified disqualifications and mandates exemptions in many cases; CFS erred in treating the conviction as disqualifying |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.P., 47 Cal.App.5th 17 (4th Dist. 2020) (due process requires individualized exemption analysis when caregiver has parental relationship)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 2003) (statutory preference for termination of parental rights and adoption when likely adoptable)
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (adoption is the norm; exceptions narrow)
- In re H.K., 217 Cal.App.4th 1422 (2d Dist. 2013) (discusses bonded, quasi‑family parental interest)
- Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park & Open‑Space Dist., 46 Cal.4th 282 (Cal. 2009) (statutes must be read as a whole and harmonized)
- In re D.R., 6 Cal.App.5th 885 (4th Dist. 2016) (example of appellate court directing adoption after reversing guardianship)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1803) (general principle that legal rights give rise to legal remedies)