In re E.F. CA4/3
G060699
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2022Background
- In Feb 2020 Mother was found under the influence of methamphetamine with three children; Minor (then 9) and two half siblings were detained and a section 300 petition was filed.
- Minor was placed with her paternal grandmother; the half siblings were placed with a different caregiver.
- Mother received reunification services but failed to engage meaningfully; she remained homeless and had unresolved substance abuse and mental health issues.
- Minor had monthly in-person visits and occasional FaceTime calls with her half siblings, enjoyed the visits, sometimes gave them gifts, and expressed a wish to live with them but also said her first choice was Mother.
- The juvenile court terminated reunification services, found Minor adoptable, and at the section 366.26 hearing concluded the sibling-relationship exception did not apply and terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed and also challenged denial of a continuance to await resolution of the half siblings’ permanent placements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SSA/Respondent) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/Appellant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sibling-relationship exception (Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26(c)(1)(B)(v)) applies | Adoption’s permanency outweighs the modest sibling contacts; caregivers would likely continue contact | Minor’s bond with half siblings is substantial (shared past home, monthly visits, Minor’s desire to live with them); termination could disrupt the relationship | Exception did not apply; court reasonably found siblings had not lived together for almost two years, contacts were monthly and not sufficiently strong to overcome adoption’s benefits; parental rights terminated |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to await the half siblings’ permanent placement | Indefinite delay harms Minor’s interest in prompt permanency; speculation about siblings’ future is insufficient to justify continuance | Needed to know siblings’ permanency to evaluate interference with sibling relationship; requested continuance to avoid premature termination | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; continuances in dependency cases are disfavored and Minor’s need for prompt resolution outweighed speculative delay |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Daisy D., 144 Cal.App.4th 287 (2006) (adoption preference generally outweighs sibling bonds; sibling exception will be rare)
- In re Isaiah S., 5 Cal.App.5th 428 (2016) (sibling exception intended to preserve long-standing sibling "anchors" for dependent children)
- In re D.O., 247 Cal.App.4th 166 (2016) (party opposing adoption bears burden to prove substantial interference with sibling relationship)
- In re F.A., 241 Cal.App.4th 107 (2015) (continuances in dependency proceedings are discouraged and require good cause)
- Jeff M. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.App.4th 1238 (1997) (continuance standards: good cause required and minor’s interest in prompt resolution is paramount)