104 Cal.App.5th 96
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Newborn N.J. was removed from her mother, C.J., immediately after birth due to mother's mental health and substance abuse issues.
- Despite early and repeated requests, Los Angeles DCFS did not assess or place N.J. with her maternal aunt, instead leaving her with a foster caregiver who was a trial attorney for the County Counsel’s office.
- DCFS and the juvenile court repeatedly delayed and ignored statutory duties to assess relatives for placement, provide adequate visitation, and communicate with mother’s appointed conservator (aunt).
- Mother’s reunification services were ultimately terminated, and her parental rights were ended without giving full consideration to the family placement preference.
- The proceedings were further complicated by failures in notice to the conservator, lack of a guardian ad litem for mother, flawed ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act) inquiries, and failure to advise mother and aunt of their right to seek writ review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.J.) | Defendant's Argument (DCFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice to Conservator & GAL | Mother’s conservator (aunt) was not properly notified; GAL should be appointed | DCFS lacked definite knowledge of conservatorship; errors not prejudicial | Court erred; prejudicial—reversal required |
| Writ Notice/Procedural Due Process | Neither mother nor conservator were told of right to seek writ review | Notification mailed to mother’s last known address was adequate | Court erred; writ notice inadequate; reach merits |
| Reasonable Reunification Services | Visitation and support services were unreasonably withheld | Mother received sufficient services considering circumstances | DCFS failed to provide reasonable services; reversal |
| Relative Placement Preference (361.3) | Statutory preference for relative not honored despite timely, repeated requests | Statute only applies at new placements; no prejudice since child bonded to foster | Relative preference applied; error was prejudicial |
| ICWA Inquiry | DCFS failed to fully investigate or notice tribes re: Native American heritage | Any errors harmless, no evidence child was eligible under ICWA | Remanded for proper ICWA inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Daniel S., 115 Cal.App.4th 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (notice to conservator required in dependency proceedings when parent is incapacitated)
- In re A.C., 166 Cal.App.4th 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (court must appoint GAL or require conservator to appear for an incompetent parent)
- In re Isabella G., 246 Cal.App.4th 708 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (relative placement preference applies where unnecessary agency delays precluded fair consideration)
- In re R.T., 232 Cal.App.4th 1284 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (agency and court must fairly evaluate relative placement requests under statutory preference)
- In re Joseph T., 163 Cal.App.4th 787 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (rejecting narrow reading of relative placement preference statute)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (relative placement preference does not guarantee placement, but must be fairly considered)