Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. R.R.
193 Cal. App. 4th 1494
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother has a long history of methamphetamine abuse and previously had her rights terminated for five older children in 2008.
- M.R. (born 2008) was detained in 2009 after multiple service and stability failures; reunification services were terminated and a permanency hearing set.
- D.R. (born 2009) was detained shortly after birth; father R.R. contested paternity and potential reunification; D.R. placed with a preadoptive foster family.
- HLA paternity testing established R.R. as D.R.’s biological father; the court considered him an alleged father regarding reunification.
- May 2010, the court held combined proceedings: ongoing permanency planning for both children and section 388 petitions from mother and R.R.; the court denied 388 petitions and terminated parental rights.
- The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders, including termination of parental rights for both children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the denial of mother’s 388 petition as to M.R. abuse of discretion? | Mother contends denial improperly relied on lack of change in circumstances. | Department argues no error as petition failed to show change that would promote best interests. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Did the denial of mother’s 388 petition as to D.R. abuse of discretion? | Mother asserts changed circumstances warrant reunification consideration. | Department asserts no showing that modification would serve D.R.’s best interests. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Was the continuance of D.R.’s permanency planning hearing properly denied? | Mother sought a continuance to review the social report and prepare; R.R. joined. | Court found proceeding promptly was in D.R.’s best interests; continuance not necessary. | Continuance denial affirmed. |
| Were R.R.’s and mother’s petitions to modify properly resolved given paternity and timelines? | R.R. argues voluntary declaration of paternity should establish presumed father status and entitlement to services. | Court found declaration invalidly executed; R.R. remained an alleged father with limited rights. | R.R.’s petition denied; no reversal. |
| Was termination of parental rights proper for both M.R. and D.R.? | Mother and R.R. contend bond and potential for reunification favor preserving parental rights. | Department argues strong likelihood of adoption and failure to preserve beneficial parental relationships justify termination. | Termination affirmed for both children. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mary G., 151 Cal.App.4th 184 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (voluntary declaration of paternity; effect and validity)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal.4th 1993) (requirement to promote best interests in 388 modifications)
- In re Julia U., 64 Cal.App.4th 532 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (timeliness and assertion of paternity; effect on rights)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (Cal.App.4th 1997) (best interests and bond considerations in 388 motions)