Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. C.R.
6 Cal. App. 5th 885
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- D.R., born 2004, lived with maternal grandmother since infancy and was thriving; grandmother sought and obtained an approved home study to adopt.
- Father C.R. had a criminal history, was largely absent for about 10 years, briefly visited during the dependency, missed many scheduled visits and conjoint therapy sessions, and reunification services for father were terminated.
- DCFS recommended adoption with grandmother; grandmother repeatedly expressed willingness and had an approved homestudy.
- At the section 366.26 hearing no witnesses testified; father’s counsel argued an exception to adoption applied and requested legal guardianship; father consented to guardianship.
- Juvenile court selected legal guardianship (finding grandmother unable or unwilling to adopt because of exceptional circumstances) and terminated jurisdiction; DCFS and D.R. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an exception to adoption applied so legal guardianship was proper | DCFS/D.R.: No exception applied; adoption preferred absent exception | Father: Exception applied because caregiver was unwilling/unable to adopt and child would be harmed by removal | Court: Reversed; no substantial evidence supported the caregiver-exception—adoption must be ordered |
| Whether father was a "presumed father" requiring a detriment finding before terminating parental rights | Father/Mother: Father was a presumed father; court needed explicit detriment finding | DCFS: Father was an alleged father; no detriment finding required | Court: Father was an alleged father (record shows "alleged"); no detriment-finding requirement applied |
| Whether substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's factual findings at 366.26 | DCFS/D.R.: No—record shows grandmother willing and able to adopt; father was inconsistent and disengaged | Father: Court relied on facts justifying guardianship | Court: Insufficient evidence for the exception; adoption is the legislatively preferred plan |
| Whether any procedural or counsel errors deprived father of relief | Father: Counsel may have failed to seek presumed-father status | DCFS: Any omission would not be prejudicial given the record | Court: Even if counsel erred, error would not be prejudicial; outcome unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jasmine T., 73 Cal.App.4th 209 (1999) (if no exception applies, court must order adoption)
- In re Casey D., 70 Cal.App.4th 38 (1999) (adoption is the Legislature’s preferred permanent plan when child is likely to be adopted)
- In re Jose V., 50 Cal.App.4th 1792 (1996) (absent exception, adoption is relatively automatic)
- In re Fernando M., 138 Cal.App.4th 529 (2006) (review of application of exceptions for substantial evidence)
- In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (2003) (juvenile court may order services for biological father even if not a presumed father)
- Francisco G. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 586 (2001) (same principle regarding services to biological fathers)
- In re T.G., 215 Cal.App.4th 1 (2013) (detriment finding required before terminating rights of a presumed father)