Samantha T. v. Superior Court
197 Cal. App. 4th 94
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Welfare and Institutions Code 362.7 authorizes placement of a dependent child with a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM) if the home is approved under foster-care standards.
- NREFM must have an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child; the relationship is verified via interviews with parents, the child, or third parties.
- The petition challenged an order placing Samantha T. and Emily T. with Megan W., whom the juvenile court found to be a NREFM.
- The agency acknowledged Megan had no relationship with the minors themselves, only with the minors’ mother and her family.
- Reunification services had been terminated and a permanent placement hearing was pending; 28 local adoptive families were available for the siblings.
- Megan’s Sacramento residence would disrupt important relationships (foster mother and therapist) and travel distances would hinder the children’s ongoing needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Megan qualifies as a NREFM under 362.7. | Megan lacks a child-specific relationship; no NREFM per statute. | NREFM may derive from family or mentoring ties, including ties to the child’s family. | Megan is not a NREFM. |
| Whether placement with Megan is in the minors’ best interests. | Placement near extended family could support future ties and reunification goals. | Even with no child NREFM, placement might serve long-term family ties and background sensitivity. | Placement with Megan is not in the minors’ best interests. |
| Whether the statutory interpretation should extend NREFM reach beyond express terms given legislative history. | Legislative history supports broader NREFM purposes (family ties, reunification). | Record lacks child-specific NREFM relationship; extended-family rationale not present here. | Statute not extended; Megan not within express NREFM terms. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion given alternative permanent placements. | NREFM placement could be appropriate to aid reunification or background sensitivity. | There are viable local adoptive homes and the risk to Samantha’s stability outweighs potential benefits. | Abuse of discretion; order to place with Megan vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (best interest implied throughout dependency law)
- In re Jessie G., 58 Cal.App.4th 1 (1997) (best interest standard in change of placement)
- In re Tabatha G., 45 Cal.App.4th 1159 (1996) (best interest and relative placement considerations)
- In re Lauren R., 148 Cal.App.4th 841 (2007) (relative placement preference does not override child’s best interests)
- Cesar V. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (2001) (relative access to relatives may be considered but must balance needs)