Los Angeles County v. E.C
192 Cal. App. 4th 129
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- B.C. was born September 27, 2008; mother involuntarily incarcerated at birth; DCFS placed him in a foster home with exemplary care and strong bond to foster parents.
- Aunt (mother’s sister) emerged as a prospective adoptive parent in May 2009 after monitored visits and a home study, while the child remained bonded to the foster parents.
- By June 2009 the court designated aunt as prospective adoptive parent, though the minor had four months with the foster family and a strong bond with them.
- Bonding study by Pick (late 2009) found the child attached to foster parents, insecure with aunt, and recommended bonding therapy and frequent visits if placement with aunt occurred.
- In February–March 2010 the court granted a continuance to enable mother’s voluntary relinquishment; the relinquishment was not yet final when SDSS acknowledged receipt, and the court subsequently lifted the “do not remove” order, ordering placement with aunt; this sequence prompted appeals and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aunt’s §388 petition was properly denied. | Aunt argues the court abused its discretion by denying her petition. | Court contends denial was proper given bonding study and timing. | No abuse of discretion; bond study and timing supported denial. |
| Whether the mother’s §388 petition was properly denied. | Mother argues error in not appointing guardian ad litem and in relief under §388. | Court correctly refused relief; no basis to modify placement under §388. | No abuse of discretion; guardian ad litem issue not proper §388 ground. |
| Whether the February 2, 2010 continuance was an abuse of discretion. | Continuation allowed mother to finalize relinquishment. | Continuance to permit relinquishment undermines child’s best interests. | Abuse of discretion; untimely continuance not justified. |
| Whether lifting the ‘do not remove’ order without a best-interest showing was proper. | Court should consider best interests before removing child. | Agency designation should control after relinquishment; no reassessment required. | Error to lift without best-interest determination; remand for proper analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.S. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1137, 179 Cal.App.4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (limits on agency discretion after relinquishment; best interests standard on remand)
- In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (liberal to grants of §388 hearings; prima facie showing required)
- In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (§388 petitions; prima facie showing standard)
- Fresno County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 626, 122 Cal.App.4th 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (do not remove/oversee agency placement after termination)
- Wayne F. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1331, 145 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (Legislative history on subdivision (n) expansion of court review after termination)