30 Cal.App.5th 381
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Cody, born 2013, was severely malnourished and neurologically delayed from neglect; parents later pled guilty to felony child cruelty and were jailed. The juvenile court found Cody a dependent under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b) and (e).
- At the June 2017 dispositional hearing the court removed Cody, bypassed reunification services (due to severe abuse), and set a §366.26 permanency (termination/adoption) hearing. Shauna signed a notice of intent to file a writ but no viable writ was pursued.
- Cody was placed in a concurrent family home with caregivers who had an approved adoption home study and were seeking to adopt. The Agency had contacted relatives, investigated potential relative/NREFM placements, and sent letters to nine relatives. Several relatives distanced themselves from Shauna or gave equivocal responses.
- Shauna later claimed the Agency failed to give statutory preferential consideration to relatives and that social workers misinformed her that Cody would not be moved from his foster home; she appealed the termination of parental rights and filed a habeas petition seeking to vacate dispositional findings and the termination order.
- The juvenile court at the §366.26 hearing found no exception to termination of parental rights; it terminated parental rights and designated caregivers as prospective adoptive parents. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and denied the habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shauna) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shauna has standing on appeal to challenge the Agency's alleged failure to give preferential consideration to relatives for placement | Reversal of placement would advance her argument against termination: relatives might have prevented adoption and preserved parental rights; she timely sought writ and lacked proper advisement | Reversal of placement would not advance Shauna's interest in avoiding termination; she has no contact with child and did not challenge termination findings | Shauna lacks standing: reversal of placement would not advance her interest in avoiding termination; any placement error would not have changed bypass of reunification services |
| Whether the Agency failed to give preferential consideration to relatives under §361.3 and related law | Agency did not meaningfully consider relatives; social worker misapplied relative-preference law and told Shauna child would not be moved | Agency investigated relatives, sent letters to nine relatives, evaluated NREFM options, and reasonably placed Cody with caregivers who could provide permanent placement | Court finds record shows Agency adequately sought relative placements; relatives were unwilling/unsuitable; Shauna forfeited the claim by not raising it below; claim fails on the merits if standing assumed |
| Whether Shauna can use habeas corpus to present new evidence not in the appellate record challenging placement | Habeas is proper to present evidence not before the juvenile court because she lacked an adequate opportunity to file a writ after dispositional orders | Habeas is an extraordinary remedy limited to custody jurisdictional defects or ineffective assistance; statutory remedies (§361.3, §388) were available and more appropriate | Habeas denied: court declines to expand habeas in dependency cases to challenge placement; §388/other statutory routes are adequate and timely |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel or other special circumstances justify habeas relief | Implicit claim that counsel or process prevented raising placement issue earlier | No adequate pleading or factual showing of ineffective assistance; petitioner did not plead particularized facts showing deficient performance and prejudice | Court rejects ineffective assistance claim as not pled or shown; habeas unavailable on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.C., 52 Cal.4th 231 (parent may appeal placement order after termination only if reversal advances parent's argument against termination)
- In re A.K., 12 Cal.App.5th 492 (parent lacks standing to challenge placement at §366.26 when it does not injuriously affect reunification interest)
- In re Alexander S., 44 Cal.3d 857 (habeas in dependency limited to wrongful custody withholding, jurisdictional defects, and certain adoption-related claims)
- In re Reno, 55 Cal.4th 428 (pleading requirements and limits of habeas corpus relief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)