In re M.C. CA6
H048615
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Minor (M.C.) initially removed and returned to mother in 2015; dependency later terminated and custody returned to mother.
- New section 300(b) petition filed April 2018 after mother's arrest and unsafe living conditions; minor placed with maternal grandmother and reunification services denied.
- March 19, 2019: juvenile court found the minor adoptable at a §366.26 hearing and terminated parental rights; maternal grandmother identified as prospective adoptive parent.
- Appellate court (Sept. 24, 2019) reversed because of ICWA notice/inquiry defects and ordered a limited remand: if tribes, after proper notice, do not claim the child, the prior termination order must be reinstated immediately.
- After remand the maternal grandmother declined to adopt and sought legal guardianship; on Sept. 14, 2020 the juvenile court found ICWA compliance, selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan, and reinstated the prior termination order; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dept.) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propriety of limited remand for ICWA-only error | Limited remand is proper to allow cure of ICWA notice; if tribes do not claim the child, immediate reinstatement is appropriate and avoids full retrial | Limited remand prevented the juvenile court from considering changed circumstances (caregiver switched to guardianship), producing an injustice and should be reconsidered | Affirmed: limited-remand practice is proper (cites Francisco W.) and appropriate here |
| Whether mother may relitigate prior appellate disposition (law of the case) | Prior appellate decision became final; its limited-remand disposition is law of the case and binding | Changed circumstances justify revisiting the prior limited-remand disposition | Held that mother’s challenge is not cognizable: law of the case bars relitigation; remedy would have been a timely petition for rehearing |
| Forfeiture for failure to object/preserve below | Mother forfeited challenge by not objecting at the Sept. 14, 2020 hearing and by not asking the juvenile court to reinstate parental rights | Mother contends counsel requested reinstatement or raised the issue below | Held forfeited: mother’s counsel made no timely objection or request on the record and did not preserve the claim |
| Jurisdiction / sufficiency of notice of appeal | Dept.: mother’s notice did not encompass challenge to prior appellate disposition so appeal is out of scope | Mother: notice referenced reinstatement, guardianship, and ICWA compliance; Rule 8.100 should be liberally construed to preserve appeals | Held that the notice is sufficient under Rule 8.100(a)(2); appellate court has jurisdiction to decide the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Francisco W., 139 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (approves limited remand when the only error is defective ICWA notice)
- Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 8 Cal.4th 791 (Cal. 1994) (issues of law based on undisputed facts reviewed de novo)
- Ducoing Mgmt., Inc. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.4th 306 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate disposition becomes final and is law of the case when remittitur issues)
- Morohoshi v. Pacific Home, 34 Cal.4th 482 (Cal. 2004) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Tina L. v. Superior Court, 163 Cal.App.4th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (limited reversal common practice for ICWA notice failures)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (addressing forfeiture in dependency appeals)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) (preservation rule: appellate review ordinarily barred if no trial-court objection)