Marin County Health & Human Services Department v. D.J.
248 Cal. App. 4th 52
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Three siblings (born 2003, 2005, 2009) were removed from mother (D.J.) in 2011 after an apartment fire and findings of chronic inadequate supervision and marijuana use; reunification services were later terminated.
- Aunt became guardian in 2012 and the dependency was dismissed, but in 2014 allegations of physical and emotional abuse by Aunt led to reinstatement of dependency and termination of the guardianship. Children were placed in three different homes because of differing needs and safety concerns.
- Older Brother exhibited sexualized conduct and was placed in an intensive therapeutic foster home; Younger Brother showed severe aggressive behaviors and was moved through foster placements and then to a prospective adoptive home; Sister remained with godparents who wanted to adopt her.
- In January 2015 the juvenile court selected adoption as the permanency plan and found the children likely to be adopted; the Department sought termination of parental rights for Sister and Younger Brother in mid-2015.
- Mother filed Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petitions (May 2015) seeking placement of all three children with the maternal grandmother, alleging the grandmother now had a suitable home; the juvenile court denied the petitions without an evidentiary hearing.
- The juvenile court later terminated Mother’s parental rights as to Sister and Younger Brother (July 2015). Mother appealed both the denial of the § 388 petitions and the termination orders; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred by denying Mother’s § 388 petitions without an evidentiary hearing | Mother argued changed circumstances (Grandmother obtained a home) and that placement with Grandmother would be in the children’s best interests | Dept./Respondent argued petitions were conclusory, failed to show prima facie best‑interest benefit given children’s specific needs and stable placements | Court: No abuse of discretion; petitions lacked prima facie showing and did not rebut presumption favoring stability after reunification services end |
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence Younger Brother was likely to be adopted | Mother argued Younger Brother’s behavioral issues made him unadoptable | Dept. pointed to significant behavioral improvement, a committed prospective adoptive family experienced with challenging children, and the Department’s ability to find other adoptive homes | Court: Substantial evidence supports adoptability; clear and convincing standard satisfied |
| Whether the sibling‑relationship exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(v)) required denying adoption | Mother argued separation of siblings would substantially interfere with sibling bonds and make termination detrimental | Dept. argued siblings had significant relationships but differing needs made joint placement unsafe; adoption’s permanency outweighed sibling contact maintained via visitation | Court: Exception did not apply; benefits of adoption and permanency outweighed sibling relationship disruption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (after reunification services end, focus shifts to child’s need for permanency and stability)
- In re G.B., 227 Cal.App.4th 1147 (2014) (§ 388 requires showing change in circumstances/new evidence and that modification would promote child’s best interests; prima facie standard)
- In re Sarah M., 22 Cal.App.4th 1642 (1994) (adoptability inquiry focuses on child’s characteristics; prospective adopter’s interest is probative)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (review standard and deference to juvenile court on adoptability findings)
- In re L.Y.L., 101 Cal.App.4th 942 (2002) (sibling‑relationship exception requires strong sibling bond and balancing against adoption’s benefits)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (court must consider only the benefits/detriments to the child being adopted when evaluating exceptions to adoption)
- In re B.D., 159 Cal.App.4th 1218 (2008) (standard for reviewing adoptability findings)