San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Y.Z.
227 Cal. App. 4th 1180
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Children G.P. (5) and A.P. (2) were removed from Mother (Y.Z.) in 2011 after Mother's chronic methamphetamine use and related safety concerns; they were placed with maternal aunt Natalie.
- Mother completed some treatment but had ongoing substance abuse and domestic-violence involvement (with Michael), violated protection orders, and failed to complete recommended aftercare and domestic-violence treatment.
- Father (Jose P.) was incarcerated in federal prison (due for release 2019) and had minimal to no contact with the children since 2008; relatives he proposed could not care for the children.
- In Sept. 2013 the aunt asked the Agency to remove the children because she could not continue caring for them (residence/approval issues and a move), prompting section 387 petitions and placement in foster care with prospective adoptive parents; an out-of-state aunt Claudia was a potential adoptive placement but ICPC approval was incomplete.
- The juvenile court found the section 387 allegations true, continued the foster placement, found the children adoptable, rejected the beneficial-relationship exception, and terminated parental rights of Mother and Father; both parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal from relative (section 387) was supported | Agency: aunt asked removal and relative placement no longer appropriate under §361.3 | Parents: removal improper; deprived them of chance to argue §366.26(c)(1)(A) exception | Court: substantial evidence supported section 387 removal and foster placement; affirmed |
| Whether beneficial-relationship exception (§366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) applied to Mother | Mother: regular visits and bond weigh against adoption | Agency: visits were limited; mother was more a "friendly visitor" and not a parental figure; risks from drugs/domestic violence | Court: substantial evidence that exception did not apply; termination proper |
| Whether Father's due-process rights were violated by lack of explicit detriment finding | Father: court terminated rights without an express finding that returning to him would be detrimental | Agency: Father invited the omission; alternatively an implied detriment finding is supported | Court: Father invited the error by counsel's tactical concessions; even if not, record supports an implied detriment finding; affirmed |
| Standard of review for these determinations | n/a | n/a | Section 387 and §366.26 exceptions reviewed for substantial evidence; invited-error doctrine applied to procedural claims |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Miguel E., 120 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (burden and procedure for §387 supplemental petitions)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (framework for beneficial-relationship exception: parent must occupy a parental role and outweigh adoption benefits)
- In re Derek W., 73 Cal.App.4th 823 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (clarifies that frequent contact alone is insufficient for the beneficial-relationship exception)
- In re S.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (limited, fact-specific application of beneficial-relationship exception)
- In re C.F., 193 Cal.App.4th 549 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses scope and limits of S.B. and beneficial-relationship exception)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process standard for termination of parental rights)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for what procedural due process requires)