San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. K.S.
196 Cal. App. 4th 1329
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- A.S. (the minor) is the oldest of three children who became dependents of the juvenile court and was placed in a group home for behavior problems after initial placement with siblings.
- At the 12-month review, foster parents of the younger two siblings expressed a desire to adopt them, and CFS recommended adoption for those two; A.S. sought reunification or protection of the sibling relationship via a section 388 petition.
- A dependency petition was filed on February 18, 2009 alleging substantial risk of harm due to mother’s mental illness and substance abuse, possible father’s inability to parent, and lack of provision for the children’s support by their fathers.
- During reunification, the minor was described as being “parentified,” later moved to a group home for behavioral issues, and the prospective adoptive mother for the younger siblings remained committed to adoption.
- Prior to the 12-month hearing, A.S. filed a JV-180 petition seeking reunification or to prevent adoption of the younger siblings; the court ordered a nonevidentiary hearing and later denied the requested change, advising the petition.
- The court ultimately terminated reunification services for the mother and referred the case for a permanent plan for the younger siblings; A.S. filed a second JV-180, the court again ordered a nonevidentiary hearing, but denied the petition, and A.S. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the section 388 petition | A.S. asserts the court misapplied §388(b) by requiring an unlikely best interests showing | CFS contends there was insufficient evidence the proposed order would serve the siblings’ best interests | No abuse of discretion; petition failed to show the younger siblings’ best interests favored maintaining the relationship or opposing adoption |
| Whether A.S. had due process right to testify or cross-examine at the §388 hearing | A.S. contends due process requires live testimony and cross-examination | Court may proceed with evidence by petition, declarations, and argument absent a due process right to cross-examination here | No due process violation; no right to an evidentiary hearing here, given lack of demonstrated benefit to the siblings and reliance on petition and documentary evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hector A., 125 Cal.App.4th 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (recognizes best interests and sibling relationship considerations in §388 petitions; bonds not always present)
- In re Aaron R., 130 Cal.App.4th 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for juvenile dependency rulings)
- In re Jeremy W., 3 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (liberally construed §388 petitions in favor of hearings)
- In re Jeanette V., 68 Cal.App.4th 811 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (due process considerations in dependency proceedings; balancing test)
- In re Malinda S., 51 Cal.3d 368 (Cal. 1990) (due process framework for dependency hearings)
- In re C.J.W., 157 Cal.App.4th 1075 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (evidence standards for §388 petitions; use of documentary evidence)
- In re L. Y. L., 101 Cal.App.4th 942 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (standing to address sibling relationships at later stages)
- In re Valerie A., 152 Cal.App.4th 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (parental rights considerations and sibling connections)