L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Shawn M. (In re Elizabeth M.)
19 Cal. App. 5th 768
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Four siblings (Shawn Jr., Michael, Elizabeth, Gail) entered dependency proceedings after allegations of parental abuse; reunification services were attempted and later terminated for some children.
- Elizabeth and Gail had been living with prospective adoptive parents for over a year at the time of the contested section 366.26 hearing; the two boys’ permanency plans were unresolved and potential Texas relative placement (ICPC) was pending.
- Parents (Shawn Sr. and Crystal) sought a continuance to decide permanency for all four children together; court continued only the boys’ hearing and proceeded on Elizabeth and Gail, concluding stability favored adoption.
- Parents argued exceptions to adoption: parent-child and sibling-relationship exceptions; the court found the girls adoptable and rejected the sibling exception.
- Crystal twice reported possible Indian ancestry, listing the tribe as “Redtail/Red Tail Indians”; Department sent deficient ICWA notice and made no meaningful follow-up family interviews; the juvenile court concluded ICWA did not apply.
- Court of Appeal conditionally affirmed termination of parental rights but remanded for adequate ICWA inquiry and, if indicated, notice and further proceedings consistent with ICWA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by denying continuance to decide permanency for all four siblings together | Parents argued hearing should be continued to allow ICPC and relatives’ placement to be resolved so all children could be placed together | Dept. & court emphasized girls’ stability in approved adoptive home of over one year and need for prompt permanency | No abuse of discretion; court properly prioritized girls’ need for stability over speculative reunification with siblings |
| Whether sibling-relationship exception to adoption applied | Parents contended separation from brothers would substantially interfere with girls’ best interests | Dept. and minors’ counsel argued girls had been separated from brothers 16 months and no evidence showed a significant bond warranting denial of adoption | Exception not established: record lacked evidence of a beneficial, severable sibling bond outweighing adoption’s permanency |
| Whether Department satisfied ICWA inquiry and notice duties after parent(s) reported Indian ancestry ("Redtail") | Parents asserted they indicated possible Indian ancestry; Department should have investigated and given proper notice | Dept. relied on its failure to find a federally recognized "Red Tail" tribe and did not interview extended family; court previously found ICWA inapplicable | Reversed/remanded on ICWA: Department failed its affirmative duty to interview family and investigate; juvenile court failed to ensure adequate inquiry; remand for full ICWA inquiry/notice and further proceedings if warranted |
| Remedy where ICWA inquiry/notice deficient after parental indication of ancestry | Parents sought compliance with ICWA and potential vacatur of termination if child is Indian child | Dept. argued limited steps already taken (BIA notice) and prior ICWA finding | Court ordered remand: Dept. must meaningfully investigate family leads, notify any identified tribe or BIA if tribe unknown, file proofs; if child is Indian child, new section 366.26 and proceedings required; otherwise prior order stands |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016) (explains agencies’ affirmative and continuing duty to inquire under ICWA and centrality of tribal notice)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (adoption preference and limited application of statutory exceptions at section 366.26)
- In re L.Y.L., 101 Cal.App.4th 942 (2002) (standard for sibling-relationship exception and factors to assess bond)
- In re Breanna S., 8 Cal.App.5th 636 (2017) (burden on parent to establish ICWA-related issues and requirements for inquiry/notice)
- In re Michael V., 3 Cal.App.5th 225 (2016) (agency duty to contact extended family when parent reports possible Indian ancestry)
- In re K.P., 175 Cal.App.4th 1 (2009) (limits on agency duty to investigate affiliations with non-federally recognized tribes)
- In re D.C., 243 Cal.App.4th 41 (2015) (prefers erring on side of providing ICWA notice to preserve placement stability)
- In re Naomi P., 132 Cal.App.4th 808 (2005) (focus on best interests of child being adopted when weighing sibling exception)