San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Sara D.
193 Cal. App. 4th 549
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Agency petitioned the juvenile court in June 2007 alleging the children were exposed to domestic violence between Sara and her boyfriend; oldest son C.F. has Down syndrome and special needs.
- Sara had a lengthy history of crystal methamphetamine use and admitted caring for the children while under the influence for days.
- Sara agreed to voluntary services and to have the boyfriend move out; she failed to follow through and contact the Agency.
- The children were detained with a maternal aunt and returned to Sara subject to family maintenance after 18 months of services.
- Sara relapsed in 2009 and the children were returned to the aunt; Sara voluntarily reentered treatment.
- In October 2010, at a contested hearing, the court found the children were adoptable and no statutory exception to adoption applied, terminating parental rights and ordering adoption as the permanent plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sara maintained regular visitation with the children. | Sara maintained regular visitation (per the record). | The record shows intermittent and sporadic visitation. | Sporadic visitation insufficient to sustain the exception. |
| Whether the parent-child beneficial relationship exception applies to prevent termination. | Sara asserts the children would benefit from continuing the relationship. | The relationship does not show a significant, positive parental role or actual detriment from termination. | The exception does not apply; no substantial parental bond or detriment shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. App. 1994) (defines the standard for detrimental impact and required parental role for the exception)
- In re Elizabeth M., 52 Cal.App.4th 318 (Cal. App. 1997) (supports requiring a parental role and positive attachment for the exception)
- In re Derek W., 73 Cal.App.4th 823 (Cal. App. 1999) (holds that frequent contact alone is insufficient; requires parental role and significant attachment)
- In re S.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. App. 2008) (discusses ‘some measure of benefit’ language and limits its applicability to extraordinary facts)
- In re Jason J., 175 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal. App. 2009) (rejects broad application of S.B.’s ‘some measure of benefit’; cautions against misreading S.B.)
- In re Zachary G., 77 Cal.App.4th 799 (Cal. App. 1999) (establishes sufficiency standard for reviewing the parent-child relationship exception)