Riverside County Department of Public Social Services v. A.B.
203 Cal. App. 4th 597
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- A.A. was removed from mother in 2008 after mother’s arrest on a federal warrant and placed with father with reunification services for mother.
- A month after termination of dependency jurisdiction for mother, the court reactivated the dependency petition alleging abuse by father and granted services only to father.
- When father failed to reunify, services were terminated and the case moved toward a §366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan of adoption; mother sought §388 modification which was denied.
- Mother, incarcerated during much of the proceedings, challenged the disposition, but the court terminated parental rights after a §366.26 hearing, with guardianship later ordered for the older sister J.R. and a separate plan for A.A.
- Relatives were assessed for placement; an aunt previously deemed inappropriate could not be considered further for placement, and the department had already explored alternatives.
- At all times, mother remained incarcerated, with a five-year prior detention influencing services and the court’s ultimate rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not considering placement with mother under §361.2. | Mother argues she was a nonoffending noncustodial parent and custody should be considered. | DPSS/court contends mother was not nonoffending/noncustodial due to prior detriment findings and incarceration; placement not required. | No reversible error; placement not required given prior detriment and current findings. |
| Whether DPSS's failure to consider §361.2 placement constitutes reversible error given mother’s incarceration and prior removal. | Mother contends the failure violated her rights and required consideration of custody. | DPSS argues forfeiture and that section 361.2 does not apply to mother under these facts. | Forfeiture and ineligibility under §361.2 affirmed; no reversible error. |
| Whether the §388 petition modification was properly denied given changed circumstances while mother remained incarcerated. | Mother claimed changed circumstances from programs completed in prison warranted modification. | Court found no substantial change related to the underlying basis for removal (mother’s imprisonment) and thus denied modification. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion; no material changed circumstances justify modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re V.F., 157 Cal.App.4th 962 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2007) (role of noncustodial parent and §361.2 considerations; distinction when detriment found)
- In re Isayah C., 118 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (standards for incarcerated parent’s rights and arrangement for care)
- In re Austin P., 118 Cal.App.4th 1124 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (definitions of custody vs placement under §361.2)
- In re S.R., 173 Cal.App.4th 864 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (standards for modification petitions and change in circumstances)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1997) (Kimberly F. criteria for §388 modification: change of circumstances and best interests)
- In re Mickel O., 197 Cal.App.4th 586 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (standards for evaluating changed circumstances in §388 petitions)