Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services v. Jasmin R.
230 Cal. App. 4th 219
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- CPS filed a dependency petition for Ernesto due to maternal chronic substance abuse and failed reunification efforts; Ernesto was born August 2013 with positive THC; mother Jasmin R. had prior losses of two older children to dependency court and had long history of drug treatment noncompliance; court bypassed reunification services and terminated rights for Ernesto’s older siblings; trial court found sobriety was not a substantial change and thus denied reunification and moved to a section 366.26 hearing; Jasmin offered an “Offer of Proof” detailing visits, care provisions, sobriety attempts, and treatment completion; the court terminated parental rights after finding adoptability and lack of substantial parent-child bond; on appeal, Jasmin argues ineffective assistance of counsel for not filing a section 388 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file a section 388 petition constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel | Jasmin argues counsel's failure was deficient | CPS argues no duty to file futile petition; no prejudice shown | Not ineffective; petition would have been futile and not in Ernesto's best interests |
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying reunification | Jasmin asserts recent sobriety constitutes change of circumstances | CPS/CA argues change is not substantial given chronic addiction | No substantial change; sobriety insufficient to support modification |
| Whether granting a section 388 petition would have better served Ernesto’s best interests | Jasmin contends reunification would benefit Ernesto | Best interests favored permanency with adoptive foster parents | Section 388 petition would not be in Ernesto's best interests; no undue delay in permanent placement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Casey D., 70 Cal.App.4th 38 (1999) (change of circumstances substantiality; best interests standard)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (1997) (substantial change required; 200 days sobriety insufficient)
- In re Heraclio, 42 Cal.App.4th 569 (1996) (substantial change must be meaningful; chronic problem not easily removed)
- In re Eileen A., 84 Cal.App.4th 1248 (2000) (disapproved on other grounds; context for section 388 petitions)
- In re Eileen A., 84 Cal.App.4th 1248 (2000) (fact-specific analysis on 388 petitions (distinguishable))
- In re Jackson W., 184 Cal.App.4th 247 (2010) (ineffective assistance standard; requires prejudice)
- People v. Eckstrom, 43 Cal.App.3d 946 (1974) (motion to file futile; not a denial of effective assistance)
- In re C.J.W., 157 Cal.App.4th 1075 (2007) (late reunification considerations; permanence focus)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (child welfare focus; timing of permanency)
- In re Rikki D., 227 Cal.App.3d 1624 (1991) (children should not wait for parent rehabilitation alone)