82 Cal.App.5th 597
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Four children lived with their guardian Aida R. since 2016; Aida was appointed legal guardian in January 2017 and has parented them since then.
- Mother substantially curtailed contact and largely ceased communications after 2019; she left trial early and later sought to reopen to testify but made no offer of proof.
- Father was incarcerated for long periods (2015–2020); contact while imprisoned was limited to jail visits and correspondence; since release he did not contact the guardian about the children.
- Ventura County HSA recommended adoption by Aida, finding children safe, bonded to guardian, and deserving a stable, permanent home; children testified they want adoption.
- Trial court terminated parental rights under Probate Code §1516.5 on best-interest grounds; parents appealed asserting errors as to evidence, reopening, and ICWA compliance.
- On appeal the court admitted additional evidence under Code Civ. Proc. §909 (mother’s ICWA-020 and tribal responses) and affirmed the termination and the trial court’s rulings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under Prob. Code §1516.5 was supported by substantial evidence that adoption is in children’s best interest | Parents: insufficient evidence; relationship with parents existed (father’s jail visits/letters) | Guardian/HSA: guardian provided stable, nurturing home; children bonded to and want adoption | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports best-interest finding and §1516.5 termination |
| Whether father’s incarceration constituted an exigent circumstance excusing lack of parental relationship | Father: incarceration is an exigent circumstance limiting contact | Guardian: incarceration largely the result of father’s choices and does not outweigh children’s need for permanence | Court considered incarceration but found it did not prevent termination |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Mother’s request to reopen trial so she could testify | Mother: illness prevented attendance; right to testify; counsel cannot waive substantial rights | Guardian/Father: Mother voluntarily left, offered no good cause or offer of proof | Denial affirmed — mother left without good cause and made no offer of proof |
| Whether court satisfied ICWA inquiry/notice obligations and whether ICWA applied | Mother: ICWA may apply; trial counsel’s representations insufficient; ICWA-020 was not in record | Guardian: tribal responses and mother’s ICWA-020 (produced on appeal) show children are not tribal members; appellate court may take evidence under CCP §909 | Appellate court took additional evidence under CCP §909, received ICWA-020 and tribal letters, found ICWA did not apply, and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Zeth, 31 Cal.4th 396 (2003) (cautions sparing use of appellate fact-finding but permits taking evidence in limited cases)
- Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (2009) (§1516.5 requires considering all best-interest factors including parent efforts and exigent circumstances)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) (clarifies clear-and-convincing/substantial-evidence review standard)
- In re Noreen G., 181 Cal.App.4th 1359 (2010) (§1516.5 does not require showing parental unfitness or least-detrimental alternative)
- In re Allison B., 79 Cal.App.5th 214 (2022) (postjudgment evidence on appeal may be admitted to expedite permanency)
- In re Dezi C., 79 Cal.App.5th 769 (2022) (warns against mechanical reversal rules that delay permanency)
- In re James F., 42 Cal.4th 901 (2008) (emphasizes public interest in prompt permanency for children)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (legislative intent to avoid delays in providing permanency)
- In re Josiah Z., 36 Cal.4th 664 (2005) (attorney may not waive certain substantial rights on client’s behalf)