Orange County Social Services Agency v. C.B.
241 Cal. App. 4th 107
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Infant F.A. born exposed to methamphetamine was placed with prospective adoptive foster parents, the S.s, who sought to adopt her.
- Hospital social worker removed F.A. from the S.s’ care on alleged exigent medical/medical-instruction concerns and SSA placed the infant with another prospective adoptive couple, the M.s.
- SSA later concluded the removal from the S.s was not exigent or substantiated and directed re-placement with the S.s; the M.s filed a grievance and CDSS rules required F.A. remain with the M.s pending grievance resolution.
- Both the S.s and the M.s filed competing Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petitions; the juvenile court froze placement pending resolution and held evidentiary hearings after several continuances.
- The court found both families excellent candidates but granted the M.s’ § 388 petition (giving them a “slight edge” because they had an approved adoptive home study and the child had flourished in their care) and denied the S.s’ petition.
- The S.s appealed arguing procedural and jurisdictional errors; the Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s orders while criticizing the outcome and urging CDSS/SSA to consider procedural protections for foster parents removed from under perceived exigent circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.s) | Defendant's Argument (SSA/M.s) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Procedural posture: appeal vs writ | This must proceed as a writ for faster relief | Court should treat it as an ordinary appeal; expedited nonetheless | Court treated it as an appeal and expedited; appeal appropriate |
| 2) Should SSA have returned child to S.s before M.s’ grievance | SSA should have immediately returned F.A. once SSA discovered removal was wrongful | CDSS regulations required seven‑day notice and continuation of placement pending grievance when child not in immediate danger | Court held SSA followed CDSS rules; SSA properly kept child with M.s pending grievance |
| 3) Were multiple continuances an abuse of discretion | Court abused discretion by granting several continuances after SSA’s final decision to re‑place with S.s | Continuances were justified by need to permit parties and counsel to review reports and prepare; court weighed child’s interests | Court found no abuse of discretion; continuances permissible under §352 balancing minor’s interests |
| 4) Did the juvenile court exceed authority by not deferring to SSA unless abuse of discretion | Court limited to reviewing SSA’s placement decision only for abuse of discretion | Because parental rights had not been terminated and §366.26(j) authority (exclusive placement after termination) was not triggered, court retained broader authority to decide competing §388 petitions | Court held it was not limited to abuse‑of‑discretion review and had authority to resolve competing §388 petitions |
| 5) Mootness & public‑interest guidance request | Case raises recurring public interest issue; court should provide guidance to prevent future harm to foster parents | Court should avoid advisory opinions and separation‑of‑powers intrusions into SSA/CDSS administration | Court declined to issue remedial guidance as advisory but urged CDSS/SSA to consider procedural reforms |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Social Services v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.App.4th 721 (1977) (agency has exclusive authority to determine placement for adoption after parental rights termination)
- In re Lauren R., 148 Cal.App.4th 841 (2007) (application of §366.26 subdivision preferences for placement when adoption is the permanent plan)
- In re Harry N., 93 Cal.App.4th 1378 (2001) (agency has resources for placement evaluation; discusses scope of review)
- In re Yvonne W., 165 Cal.App.4th 1394 (2008) (court may decide moot issues of continuing public importance capable of repetition yet evading review)
- In re Giovanni F., 184 Cal.App.4th 594 (2010) (continuances are disfavored in dependency proceedings; courts weigh prompt resolution and stability)
- In re Mary B., 218 Cal.App.4th 1474 (2013) (standard of review for continuance decisions in dependency cases)
- C. V. C. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.App.3d 909 (1973) (prospective adoptive parents may have due process interest protecting placement)