San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jessica A.
247 Cal. App. 4th 166
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- D.O., born to Jessica A. and Scott O., was removed at age one after incidents of domestic violence and parental noncooperation; siblings Je.O., Y.O., and Jo.O. (ages 11–9) were also detained.
- D.O. was placed with her paternal grandmother; the three older siblings were placed together with nonrelative caregivers; sibling visits occurred about twice monthly.
- The juvenile court terminated reunification services for D.O.'s parents and set a section 366.26 hearing; the Agency recommended adoption and reported the paternal grandmother was committed to adopting D.O. and facilitating sibling contact.
- The Siblings sought to invoke the sibling-relationship exception to adoption (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(v)); they and the mother argued the exception applied at the 366.26 hearing.
- The juvenile court found D.O. likely adoptable, concluded there would be no substantial interference with sibling relationships (citing caregivers’ track records and commitments), terminated parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sibling-relationship exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(v)) applies | Agency: Adoption preferred; no substantial interference because caregivers will and have facilitated sibling contact | Mother/Siblings: Court erred by relying on caregivers’ assurances of future visits instead of considering only statute’s enumerated factors | Court: Affirmed — statute allows consideration of factors beyond the listed examples; proven history and commitment to visits support finding of no substantial interference |
| Whether relying on unenforceable promises of future visitation is impermissible | Siblings: Promises of future contact are speculative and unenforceable, so court should not base its finding on them | Agency/Court: Unlike parent-child bond exception, sibling ties may persist post-termination; assurances plus demonstrated facilitation are relevant evidence | Court: Permitted reliance on caregivers’ proven track record and expressed commitment; analogous in-court precedent supports relevance of future-visit assurances |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (California 2003) (focuses sibling-exception analysis from adoptive child’s perspective)
- In re L.Y.L., 101 Cal.App.4th 942 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (explains initial determination whether termination would substantially interfere with sibling relationship)
- In re Daisy D., 144 Cal.App.4th 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (addresses rarity of sibling-exception and relevance of adoptive caregivers’ commitment to sibling contact)
- In re Valerie A., 152 Cal.App.4th 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (notes sibling-exception will rarely outweigh benefits of adoption)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (adoption as legislature’s preferred permanent plan)
- In re Jacob S., 104 Cal.App.4th 1011 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (upholds relevance of caregivers’ history and statements about maintaining sibling ties)