History
  • No items yet
midpage
Janice M. v. Misty F.
201 Cal. App. 4th 1518
Cal. Ct. App.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • Parents Misty F. and Jesse M. are Myah M.'s biological parents; in 2006 the probate court granted letters of guardianship to paternal grandmother Janice M. and paternal grandfather Anthony M. via stipulation and mediation.
  • In 2010 paternal grandparents filed to adopt Myah and terminate parental rights under Probate Code section 1516.5; court held termination was in Myah's best interests.
  • Myah lived with paternal grandparents since 2006; parents had histories of drug use, domestic violence, and criminal conduct; visitation was supervised and inconsistent.
  • The court found guardianship had provided a stable home for four years; parents acknowledged inability to provide stable care; Myah bonded with guardians and had some bond with parents.
  • The court consolidated guardianship and adoption proceedings; ultimately terminated parental rights and allowed guardians to adopt under Probate Code 1516.5; both parents appealed.
  • The appellate court upheld without finding unfitness, distinguishing this case from Christian and emphasizing mediation, voluntary guardianship, and the best-interests balancing under 1516.5.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the 2006 guardianship order was properly before appeal Mother and father contend 2006 order violated due process; rely on Christian to require CFS referral Guardian grandparents assert mediation and consent negate CFS referral need Guardian order not reviewable on appeal; no timely challenge; court lacked jurisdiction over 2006 order
Whether failure to refer to CFS violated due process Parents claim due process violated due to lack of CFS investigation Guardians argue no referral necessary after mediation and consent No referral necessary when guardianship is consented to after mediation; due process not violated
Whether Probate Code 1513( c ) referral duty applies when guardianship is based on a stipulation after mediation Christian requires referral if parental unfitness alleged Stipulated guardianship after mediation suffices without referral Referral not required where guardianship is stipulated after mediation and parents consent
Whether termination under 1516.5 requires a finding of unfitness Parent argues unfitness must be established prior to termination Ann S. and Charlotte D. permit termination on best interests without unfitness findings in guardianship context No unfitness finding required; 1516.5 permits termination if child’s best interests are served and two-year guardianship exists
Whether there is substantial evidence that adoption by guardians is in Myah's best interests Parents bond with Myah; adoption would disrupt stability Guardians provide stable home; parents have ongoing but inconsistent contact; Myah’s best interests favor adoption Substantial evidence supports adoption; best-interests balancing favors guardians' adoption over parental rights

Key Cases Cited

  • Christian G. v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.4th 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (referral to CFS required when allegations of unfitness arise in guardianship; distinguishes contested from stipulation-based cases)
  • Ann S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 1110 (Cal. 2009) (probate guardianship 1516.5 generally does not require unfitness finding; contemplates exceptional circumstances)
  • Charlotte D. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 1140 (Cal. 2009) (parental commitment and relinquishment of rights in guardianship; evaluates commitment to responsibilities)
  • In re Amber M., 103 Cal.App.4th 681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (analysis of substantial evidence and exceptions under dependency context; distinguishable from probate guardianship)
  • Guardianship of H.C., 198 Cal.App.4th 1235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (investigations and referral requirements; comparison to Christian situation)
  • Guardianship of L.V., 136 Cal.App.4th 481 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (best interests standard in guardianship; not automatic reversal for lack of current custody capability)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Janice M. v. Misty F.
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Dec 19, 2011
Citation: 201 Cal. App. 4th 1518
Docket Number: No. A130811
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.