San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency v. Brooke H.
208 Cal. App. 4th 1019
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Anthony T. is a child of Brooke H. (non-Indian) and Ronald T. (Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe member).
- Tribe intervened in Anthony’s dependency proceedings; Agency placed Anthony with the Hs., a non-tribally affiliated foster family in Riverside County, ~2.5 hours from Brooke’s home.
- Tribe designated the Hs. as the tribally approved and culturally appropriate concurrent foster/adoptive home, asserting reunification and tribal connections are best served there.
- Dispositional order placed Anthony with the Hs.; court considered geographic barriers to visitation and ordered Tribe to transport Anthony for visits.
- Agency and Brooke opposed the Tribe’s placement preference; the court found no good cause to deviate from ICWA placement preferences.
- This led to a reversal by the appellate court, which found the placement not within reasonable proximity and not conducive to visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the placement within reasonable proximity to the child’s home? | Brooke/Anthony: proximity mandatory; distance obstructs visitation and reunification. | Agency/Tribe: proximity is one factor among others; Tribe transport could facilitate visits. | Not within reasonable proximity; proximity requirement is mandatory and not satisfied. |
| Did the court err by deferring to the Tribe’s placement preference without showing good cause to deviate? | Good cause not shown; statutory preference must be weighed against proximity and visitation needs. | Court may consider Tribe's preferences and use tribal resources; no need for separate proximity determination first. | Yes, reversal; no substantial evidence supports adherence to the Tribe’s preferred placement without good cause. |
| Does state court’s application of ICWA placement preferences infringe tribal sovereignty? | Removal from tribal placement undermines tribal sovereignty. | State court retains parens patriae duty and may determine best interests; sovereignty not absolute. | No; sovereign interests do not override state’s duty to protect child welfare when good cause exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jack C., 192 Cal.App.4th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (ICWA placement preferences and proximity considerations in California)
- Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (ICWA aims to protect Indian children and tribes; foster care should reflect tribal values)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (Parent’s interest and tribal interests; state court welfare determinations balancing factors)
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (Cal. 1996) (State court parens patriae duty with regard to Indian children; totality of circumstances)
- In re Anna S., 180 Cal.App.4th 1489 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (Reversal guidance without auto-removal; assess current circumstances post-reversal)