San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Michael E.
213 Cal. App. 4th 670
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Michael E., Jr. was adjudicated a dependent child due to domestic violence and his mother’s alcohol abuse and placed in relative care with his maternal great-aunt and great-uncle.
- Michael Sr. had no contact with his son since 2009 and expressed interest in placement with paternal relatives in Tennessee, while he and his fiancée E.C. had a young infant son.
- In May 2012, the relatives could no longer care for Michael, and the Agency detained him in foster care, with ICPC efforts to place him with his maternal grandparents in Michigan underway.
- Paternal relatives in Tennessee were identified as possible placement; ICPC and foster licensing processes were pursued for potential placement with relatives.
- At the August 31, 2012 hearing, E.C. had not met Michael and had no established relationship with him or his half brother; the court denied ordering an evaluation of E.C.’s home as a potential NREFM.
- The court continued Jennifer’s reunification services and concluded that placing Michael with E.C. would not be in his best interests or advance the goals of section 362.7; the order denying NREFM evaluation was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NREFM status requires an existing relationship. | Michael Sr. argues E.C. should qualify due to a familial connection. | The court should limit NREFM to those with an established relationship under § 362.7. | No reversible error; statute contemplates broader goals beyond an existing relationship. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying evaluation of E.C.’s home for NREFM. | E.C. has potential close connection to the family and could aid reunification. | E.C. had not met Michael and would not serve best interests at the time. | No abuse of discretion; E.C.’s home was not a viable placement and did not further § 362.7 goals. |
| Whether placement with relatives or relatives' ICPC efforts trumped consideration of E.C. as NREFM. | Relatives' preference and ongoing ICPC studies supported alternative placements. | NREFM evaluation should consider broader factors including continuity and family connections. | Placement with relatives and ongoing ICPC considerations supported the court’s decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Samantha T. v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.4th 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (defines NREFM scope and goals, including maintaining familiar surroundings and aiding reunification)
- In re Samantha T., 197 Cal.App.4th 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses NREFM framework and related factors)
- In re Valerie A., 152 Cal.App.4th 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (supports viewing NREFM goals beyond existing relationships and considers sibling and family connections)
- In re Fernando M., 138 Cal.App.4th 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory interpretation and standard of review for NREFM decisions)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. (1956)) (miscarriage of justice standard for reversal under substantial evidence review)