Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Ivy B.
200 Cal. App. 4th 1454
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hunter W. (born June 2009) became a dependent child after DCFS petitioned under §300 due to the mother’s and father’s histories of child deaths, neglect, and substance abuse.
- The court initially placed Hunter with paternal great-aunt Nikki C., and denied reunification services to both parents under §361.5(b)(4).
- Mother disclosed possible Indian ancestry; the court preliminarily found no ICWA notice requirement and instructed ongoing disclosure of new information.
- Mother filed a §388 petition on Sept. 22, 2010; father filed §388 on Nov. 18, 2010 seeking reunification and other relief; hearings were continued to gather evidence.
- On Dec. 6, 2010, the court proceeded with the §388 hearing in the parents’ absence despite requests for a short delay to locate them, and then terminated parental rights with adoption as the plan.
- The court later affirmed that ICWA did not apply, and this decision was reviewed on appeal with the central issue focusing on due process and the denial of the requested delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse its discretion by denying a short delay for the parents in the §388 hearing? | Has formKelsey S. father status; due process requires opportunity to be heard. | Court properly managed calendar; no good cause shown for delay; proceeding was in minor’s best interest. | Yes; abuse of discretion; reversal of §388 denial and related §366.26 order. |
| Whether the father has Kelsey S. rights to reunification and standing to oppose the §388/§366.26 orders. | Father may demonstrate presumed status due to conduct and paternity; has rights. | Presumed status not challenged; argument limited to standard dependency rights. | Father has standing under Kelsey S. principles to challenge the §388 denial and termination orders. |
| Did the court by its ICWA finding and inquiry duty properly determine whether Hunter is an Indian child? | Mother provided information suggesting possible Indian ancestry; ICWA inquiry was required. | Information was speculative; no reason to know Hunter was Indian; no notice required. | The ICWA ruling is affirmed; reversal not warranted on ICWA grounds, but remand to ensure proper ICWA compliance if later information warrants. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.L., 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (presumed father status analysis; standing in dependency cases)
- In re M.C., 195 Cal.App.4th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Kelsey S. rights; reunification eligibility)
- In re J.D., 189 Cal.App.4th 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (ICWA inquiry trigger; speculative ancestry insufficient)
- In re Nikki R., 106 Cal.App.4th 844 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (notice rights and tribal intervention under ICWA)
- Adoption of B.C., 195 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (ICWA membership determination is tribal decision; not ministerial)
- In re Hashem H., 45 Cal.App.4th 1791 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (due process and §388 hearing protections)
- In re Lesly G., 162 Cal.App.4th 904 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (right to be heard; balancing timeliness with parental rights)
- In re Jeremy W., 3 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (procedural prerequisites to §366.26 following §388)
- Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992) (framework for Kelsey S. presumed father rights and timing)