Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. D.H. (In re D.H.)
14 Cal. App. 5th 719
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- D.H., born 2008, lived under a 2010 probate guardianship with his paternal grandparents; mother had substance/mental health issues and father was a presumed, noncustodial parent.
- In 2014 DPSS filed a dependency petition alleging grandparents neglected D.H.; allegations focused on grandparents' methamphetamine use and their permitting father and his girlfriend access to the child.
- Juvenile court removed D.H. from the grandparents, provided reunification services to the grandparents, and never sustained any jurisdictional allegations against father.
- Grandparents failed to reunify; at the 12‑month review DPSS terminated their services and set a §366.26 permanency hearing recommending adoption.
- Father reappeared late, requested counsel and visitation, opposed adoption and sought guardianship under the parental‑benefit exception; the juvenile court nevertheless terminated father’s parental rights without any prior finding of unfitness or that placement with father would be detrimental by clear and convincing evidence.
- Appellate court reversed: held due process requires a clear‑and‑convincing detriment/unfitness finding against a nonoffending, noncustodial presumed parent before terminating parental rights and remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a clear‑and‑convincing finding of parental unfitness/detriment before terminating a presumed father's rights when he was not the subject of earlier dependency findings | Father: termination violated Santosky; juvenile court must find unfitness/detriment by clear and convincing evidence before severing rights | DPSS: no prior detriment finding required under §366.26; best‑interest suffices in this context | Court: Reversed — due process requires a detriment/unfitness finding by clear and convincing evidence prior to termination for a nonoffending, noncustodial presumed parent; remand for such a determination. |
| Whether Probate Code §1516.5 (best‑interest standard in guardianship adoptions) governs termination in dependency proceedings involving prior probate guardianship | DPSS: extend Ann S./Charlotte D. (Probate) best‑interest rule to dependency context | Father: Probate Code approach inapplicable; dependency has different state‑supervised reunification and evidentiary burdens | Court: Declined to extend Probate §1516.5 rationale here; probate cases differ materially and do not eliminate the Santosky/Gladys L. protections in dependency proceedings. |
| Forfeiture of due process claim for failing to object below | DPSS: father forfeited by not raising the argument in juvenile court | Father: constitutional claim; appellate review appropriate | Court: Excused forfeiture; considered claim de novo due to fundamental constitutional nature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights cannot be terminated absent at least clear and convincing proof of parental unfitness)
- In re Gladys L., 141 Cal.App.4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (juvenile court must find unfitness/detriment by clear and convincing evidence before terminating a presumed father’s rights if he was not the subject of earlier findings)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (Cal. 1993) (discusses role of prior findings of parental unfitness/detriment as constitutional predicate at §366.26 stage)
- In re Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (Cal. 2009) (upheld Probate Code §1516.5 best‑interest standard in probate guardianship adoptions; limited to probate context)
- In re Charlotte D., 45 Cal.4th 1140 (Cal. 2009) (companion probate decision addressing §1516.5 and due process)
- In re G.S.R., 159 Cal.App.4th 1202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (applies Gladys L. protections; reverses termination where no detriment finding)
- Frank R. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (reversed termination for presumed father where no clear‑and‑convincing detriment finding was made)
- In re Z.K., 201 Cal.App.4th 51 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (rejects argument that §366.26 alone cures constitutional defect; requires detriment finding when parent was not subject of earlier proceedings)
- In re G.P., 227 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (limited instance where appellate court inferred detriment finding; court noted rarity and careful justification required)