San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Amber G.
5 Cal. App. 5th 428
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Isaiah, removed multiple times (drug exposure at birth, later injuries); dependency established in 2014 after domestic violence and injuries; placed in licensed foster care.
- Amber (mother) repeatedly failed to comply with reunification: violated protective orders, lost contact with Agency, stopped services, and missed/ceased visits by mid-2015.
- Isaiah and brother Juan, Jr. were placed together in a foster home; foster mother provided stable, long-term care and sought to adopt Isaiah and Juan, Jr.
- Maternal relatives in Fresno expressed interest in caring for/adopting the children and were undergoing assessment; Amber initially opposed placement with those relatives but later said she preferred them if she could not care for Isaiah.
- Agency recommended termination of Amber’s reunification services and a permanent plan of adoption for Isaiah; the juvenile court terminated services, suspended visits, and at the section 366.26 hearing terminated Amber’s parental rights and designated the foster parent as prospective adoptive parent.
Issues
| Issue | Amber's Argument | Agency/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court/Agency failed to comply with the relative-placement duty (Welf. & Inst. Code § 361.3) | Amber: Agency did not properly assess maternal relatives and court failed to exercise independent judgment on relative placement | Agency/Court: Maternal relatives were seeking adoption; placement with them would not prevent termination of parental rights | No standing — reversal of placement would not advance Amber’s argument against termination; appeal dismissed on this ground |
| Whether Amber had standing to challenge placement decision at § 366.26 | Amber: Prior placement with relatives could have preserved her parental relationship | Court: Parent only has standing to challenge placement if reversal would help avoid termination; here relatives sought adoption and Amber had lost reunification rights | Amber lacked standing to raise relative-placement preference at § 366.26 |
| Whether sibling-relationship exception to adoption applies (substantial interference standard) | Amber: Termination would substantially interfere with Isaiah’s relationship with Juan, Jr.; court should preserve sibling ties | Agency/Court: Foster parent committed to maintaining sibling contact; sibling relationship was mixed (strong bond but violent/physically injurious); benefits of adoption outweighed sibling contact | Court did not err—sibling exception did not apply; termination affirmed |
| Whether preserving parental rights would better protect sibling relationship | Amber: If not terminated, she could facilitate sibling contact | Court/Agency: Amber had no visits since mid-2015, had protective-order restrictions preventing contact with father/siblings, and reunification services were terminated | Preserving Amber’s rights would not realistically preserve sibling relationship; speculative arguments rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.C., 52 Cal.4th 231 (parent lacks standing to appeal placement unless reversal would advance challenge to termination)
- In re Esperanza C., 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 (placement reversal can affect permanency and parental-rights outcome)
- In re Daniel H., 99 Cal.App.4th 804 (sibling-relationship exception standard and factors)
- In re Erik P., 104 Cal.App.4th 395 (purpose of sibling exception to preserve long-standing sibling “anchors”)
- In re D.O., 247 Cal.App.4th 166 (standards of review: substantial evidence for factual findings, abuse of discretion for balancing interests)
- In re Jayden M., 228 Cal.App.4th 1452 (once reunification services are terminated, parent generally lacks standing to appeal relative-placement preference)