Mendocino Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. J.R. (In re E.R.)
18 Cal. App. 5th 891
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Prior opinion in In re E.R. concluded mother revoked Rafael H.'s Indian custodian status and that Rafael could not be placed as extended family under ICWA; E.R. upheld long-term foster care when Rafael had no party status to challenge permanent plans.
- Rafael challenged a juvenile court permanent plan order in the current proceeding, alleging insufficient active efforts to prevent breakup of the Indian family and disputing long-term foster care
- Agency moved to dismiss as moot after E.R.; court requested supplemental briefing on Rafael’s standing as an interested relative, ICWA extended family member, de facto parent, or person important to the child under W&I 366.3(e)
- After reviewing supplements, court held Rafael has no standing to raise issues in this appeal because he is no longer the Indian custodian and cannot invoke ICWA invalidation rights
- Even if Rafael had de facto parent status or was designated as important to the child, California case law and §366.3 do not grant standing to appeal permanent plan orders; ICWA regulations do not alter this result
- Minors remain in permanent plans; Tribe remains involved and Rafael may participate at the juvenile court level for visitation; the appeal is dismissed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge permanent plans under ICWA | Rafael contends standing as Indian custodian or relative allows appeal | Rafael lacks Indian custodian status and cannot challenge ICWA orders | Rafael has no standing to challenge permanent plans under ICWA |
| De facto or important-to-the-child status conferring standing | De facto parent/important-to-child status could permit appeals | Such status does not confer appellate standing to permanent plan orders | No standing based on de facto parent or 366.3 status to appeal permanent plan orders |
| Effect of ICWA Regulations on standing for pre-regulation orders | New ICWA regulations apply and confer standing | Regulations not binding for orders before Dec. 12, 2016 and do not create standing here | Regulations do not grant standing; pre-regulation orders unaffected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Michael A., 209 Cal.App.4th 661 (2012) (grandparent/de facto parent lack ICWA standing absent custodian)
- Molly O. v. State, 320 P.3d 303 (Alaska 2014) (custodian status required for ICWA standing; revocation ends role)
- In re G.L., 177 Cal.App.4th 683 (2009) (revocable Indian custodianship; status terminated ends rights)
- Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.App.4th 747 (1995) (de facto parent rights and limitations; no reunification services)
- Amber R. v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 897 (2006) (366.3 standing focuses on child's best interest; not broadening standing)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (focus shifts to permanency after reunification services terminate)
- In re E.R., 244 Cal.App.4th 866 (2016) (earlier holding on Indian custodian status and placement; framework for standing)