San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. J.K.
10 Cal. App. 5th 1071
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Minor (born June 2014) was detained after parents tested positive for amphetamines/methamphetamine and multiple domestic-violence incidents occurred in Minor's presence; Mother had an extensive history of substance abuse and prior child removals.
- Parents initially received reunification and family maintenance services; Minor was returned to them in March 2015 but removed again in February 2016 after additional domestic violence and alleged continued drug use.
- The juvenile court sustained a supplemental petition, terminated reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing; by that hearing Minor was placed with the paternal grandmother (PGM), who was the prospective adoptive parent.
- Mother filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petition (Sept. 14, 2016) seeking return of Minor based on participation in programs and improved health; the court summarily denied the petition and later terminated parental rights at the § 366.26 hearing.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the § 388 denial was erroneous (no evidentiary hearing), (2) her due process rights were violated when prevented from testifying about Minor’s relationship with siblings, and (3) the beneficial parental-relationship exception to adoption should apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CFS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in summarily denying Mother’s § 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing | Denial proper because Mother failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that relief would be in Minor’s best interest given history of drug use and domestic violence | Mother argued she completed programs, stabilized health, and had rehabilitated sufficiently to merit a hearing and renewed services or return | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying a hearing; Mother failed to show prima facie changed circumstances and, even if error, denial was harmless as relief would not have been in Minor’s best interest |
| Whether the court’s exclusion of testimony about Minor’s relationship with siblings violated Mother’s due process rights | Exclusion was within discretion because focus is parental bond | Mother argued sibling relationships are a statutory exception to termination and testimony about siblings is relevant and necessary to raise that exception | Court: Exclusion was error; sibling relationship was a proper issue and exclusion prevented Mother from presenting necessary evidence—reversed and remanded for limited evidentiary hearing on sibling relationship exception |
| Whether the beneficial parental-relationship exception applied to preclude adoption | Adoption preferred; evidence shows weak current attachment and long periods out of Mother’s custody | Mother argued regular visitation and bond with Minor outweigh adoption benefits | Court: Held exception inapplicable—substantial evidence supported finding no beneficial parental bond sufficient to overcome adoption preference |
| Overall disposition—should termination be reversed or limited remand ordered | CFS urged affirmance | Parents sought reversal or new proceedings | Court: Affirmed termination except reversed and remanded for limited hearing solely on the sibling-relationship exception; in all other respects judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (describes heavy burden for sibling-relationship exception and requirement to weigh adoption benefits against sibling preservation)
- In re J.P., 229 Cal.App.4th 108 (2014) (§ 388 prima facie showing standard to trigger evidentiary hearing)
- In re J.T., 228 Cal.App.4th 953 (2014) (standards for § 388 relief and evaluation of changed circumstances)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (1997) (addiction relapse and the limited probative value of short-term sobriety for § 388 relief)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (framework for beneficial parental-relationship exception balancing parental bond against adoption benefits)
- In re Madison W., 141 Cal.App.4th 1447 (2006) (liberal construction of appeal from termination to encompass denial of § 388 if within 60 days)
- In re Justice P., 123 Cal.App.4th 181 (2004) (due process in dependency proceedings; harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for certain trial errors)