San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. S.L., 173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774

Background

Twins born premature and medically fragile; taken into protective custody in Nov. 2011 after injury in mother's custody. Placed with S.L. and family (the L.'s) from Nov. 2011 to Feb. 17, 2013.
L.'s provided intensive care, the twins made substantial developmental progress and were strongly bonded to the L. family; L.'s initially indicated willingness to adopt but hesitated in late 2012 due to exhaustion and marital issues, then renewed commitment to adopt by Jan. 2013.
Court granted S.L. de facto parent status on Jan. 28, 2013. CFS removed the twins on Feb. 17, 2013 and placed them with a prospective adoptive couple after a 10-day pre-placement visit.
At the March 5, 2013 section 366.26 hearing the juvenile court refused to return the twins to the L.'s, terminated parental rights, vacated S.L.'s de facto status on an oral motion, and denied appointed counsel to S.L.; a later order reinstated de facto status but a subsequent section 388 petition by S.L. seeking return was summarily denied.
The appellate court concluded the record does not show the juvenile court considered whether removal from the L.'s and new placement were in the twins' best interests, and remanded for reconsideration and findings addressing the twins’ current circumstances and best interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court properly allowed CFS to remove the twins from de facto parents without a noticed § 388 showing	S.L.: Court should have required CFS to justify removal and considered whether removal was in twins' best interests	CFS: Removal was justified because L.'s had previously hesitated to adopt; agency acted to secure adoptive placement	Reversed as to removal; remand required because record does not show court considered twins' best interests or required CFS to make § 388 showing before termination of de facto status
Whether the court lawfully vacated S.L.'s de facto parent status without a noticed motion and evidence of changed circumstances	S.L.: Termination required a noticed § 388 motion and preponderance showing of changed circumstances	CFS/County: Argued de facto status ends upon adoption or was moot after removal	Vacatur was erroneous; de facto status cannot be terminated without required procedure; remand to reconsider placement and adoption opportunity
Whether S.L. was denied procedural due process (opportunity to be heard/present evidence) at March 5 hearing	S.L.: Court prevented her from presenting evidence on best interests and denied appointed counsel	County: Treated issue as moot because children had been removed and adopted; opposed appointment	Court found de facto parent procedural rights were disregarded; S.L. may renew request for appointed counsel on remand if indigent
Whether summary denial of S.L.'s § 388 petition without a hearing was proper	S.L.: Presented sufficient evidence of changed circumstances and bond to warrant a hearing	County: Implicitly contended no basis for return	Reversed to extent denial denied chance to contest removal; remand for hearing and findings addressing current best interests if warranted

Key Cases Cited

In re B.G., 11 Cal.3d 679 (de facto parents provide critical information and may be custodial alternatives)
In re Patricia L., 9 Cal.App.4th 61 (procedural prerequisites and standards for de facto parent status)
In re M.V., 146 Cal.App.4th 1048 (remand required where record fails to show court considered child's best interests after removal from de facto parents)
In re Leticia S., 92 Cal.App.4th 378 (de facto status persists absent termination of dependency or changed circumstances shown)
In re P.L., 134 Cal.App.4th 1357 (hesitation to adopt can support placement change but does not absolve agency of best-interests inquiry)
Katzoff v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.App.3d 1079 (risk of psychological harm from removing young children from only known caretakers)