Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services v. J.M.
228 Cal. App. 4th 1452
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Detention petition filed Oct 19, 2012 under §300 alleging parental substance abuse issues and domestic violence; Jayden placed with paternal aunt and uncle.
- Reunification services offered to both parents; father did not engage, mother partial engagement; services terminated June 2013 at six‑month review.
- By Oct 2013 the Department recommended termination of parental rights and adoption by an alternate family due to concerns about the current placement.
- Jayden, age three, was generally healthy and adoptable; he made speech and motor skill progress.
- A continued selection and implementation hearing was held; concerns about relatives’ suitability were raised, and a new prospective adoptive placement was identified.
- The court denied mother's continuance request, found Jayden likely to be adopted, and terminated parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §366.26(n) applies and if the parents have standing to challenge relative placement. | Parents contend the court failed to follow §366.26(n) and §361.3 procedures. | Department argues §366.26(n) not applicable here and parents lack standing to challenge relative placement. | §366.26(n) inapplicable; parents lack standing to raise relative-placement issues. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence Jayden was adoptable and would be adopted in a reasonable time. | Parents challenge the sufficiency of adoptability evidence, including lack of updated assessment. | Initial adoptability assessment remained sufficient; an identified adoption placement existed. | There was substantial evidence Jayden was adoptable and likely to be adopted in a reasonable time. |
| Whether the denial of a continuance violated mother's right to effective counsel and a fair hearing. | Mother asserts denial impeded presentation of relative-placements evidence and bond considerations. | Court acted within discretion; continuance would not affect adoptability focus. | No reversible error; no demonstrated abuse of discretion affecting the termination outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.C., 52 Cal.4th 231 (Cal. 2011) (standing to appeal depends on aggrieved status; relative-placement issues after reunification termination)
- Cesar V. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (parent lacks standing to contest placement after termination absent injury)
- In re Lukas B., 79 Cal.App.4th 1145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (adoptability standards; reasonable time for adoption)
- In re A.A., 167 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (focused on adoptability at section 366.26 hearing)
- In re Sarah M., 22 Cal.App.4th 1642 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (adoptability analysis not requiring preadoptive placement)
- In re Desiree M., 181 Cal.App.4th 329 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (mother lacked standing to challenge notice of continued hearing)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (forfeiture rules for updated assessments; failure to object)
- In re Erik P., 104 Cal.App.4th 395 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (updated assessments; continuance rights)
- In re Ronell A., 44 Cal.App.4th 1352 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (standard for appellate review of adoptability)
- People v. Elmore, 59 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 2014) (contextual statutory interpretation within overall scheme)