Marin County Health & Human Services Department v. K.L.
246 Cal. App. 4th 1241
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Five children (ages 8–15) initially placed in foster care after mother (K.L.) asked Contra Costa CFS for help when she lacked housing and resources; petitions sustained after mother admitted amended allegations.
- Mother moved back to Marin County, was engaged in services there, and Contra Costa CFS recommended reunification services and transfer of the case to Marin.
- Marin court accepted the transfer to Marin in May 2015; Marin Department later sought to re-transfer to Contra Costa under its "sensitive case" protocol after discovering an attenuated familial link between a Marin employee and the children.
- Mother opposed re-transfer, arguing it would disrupt services and was not in the children’s best interests; Marin court nonetheless ordered transfer back to Contra Costa citing confidentiality concerns.
- Mother moved for reconsideration; the court reaffirmed the transfer under the Department’s policy despite acknowledging possible service deficiencies in Contra Costa. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Respondent (Marin) Argument | Appellant (K.L.) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court may transfer dependency proceedings under a county "sensitive case" protocol without determining the transfer is in the children’s best interests | The department’s confidentiality concerns and policy require out-of-county handling of sensitive cases; transfer appropriate to avoid potential breaches | Transfer was ordered for departmental convenience/concern, not children’s best interests; re-transfer disrupts services and delays reunification | Reversed: court must determine transfer is in the child’s best interests before transferring; protocol cannot bypass that duty |
| Whether the transfer error was harmless and the appellate court may affirm because Contra Costa later provided services | Contra Costa later found to provide reasonable services; returning to Marin would cause delay prejudicial to children | Error was not shown harmless; remote management by Contra Costa impeded mother’s access to services | Reversal required; harmlessness not established and relief must restore proper proceedings in Marin |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Andrew J., 213 Cal.App.4th 678 (court must ensure transfer serves child’s best interest)
- In re R.D., 163 Cal.App.4th 679 (best-interest inquiry required before intercounty transfer)
- In re J.C., 104 Cal.App.4th 984 (same)
- In re Christopher T., 60 Cal.App.4th 1282 (best-interest standard controls transfer decisions)
- In re A.L., 224 Cal.App.4th 354 (trial courts may not adopt local procedures inconsistent with statutes or court rules)
- People v. Gabriel, 189 Cal.App.4th 1070 (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting minute order)
- Day v. Sharp, 50 Cal.App.3d 904 (limits on judicial notice requested by parties)