Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. C.K.
190 Cal. App. 4th 102
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Dependency petitions filed Oct 19, 2007 for C.B. and M.B. (and sister C.); court entertained jurisdiction and ordered reunification with mother and no reunification for father.
- Several amendments to petitions; mother incarcerated, father imprisoned; sustained findings of risk and neglect; initial disposition placed children in DFCS custody.
- 12-month and six-month reviews led to termination of reunification services for mother and placement with relatives; adoption planned; ICWA notice issues began to surface.
- ICWA expert concluded ICWA did not apply at that time; court treated proceedings as ICWA-compliant for purposes of notice and active efforts.
- 366.26 hearing in Oct 2009 considered parent-child, sibling, and Indian child exceptions; court found none applied and terminated parental rights; appellate reversal ordered limited remand for better ICWA notice to Seneca tribes and reconsideration of the parent-child relationship exception.
- Court remanded for adequte notice to Seneca tribes and to reassess the parent-child relationship exception under correct standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parent-child relationship exception applies | Mother: strong bond favors exception | Court misapplied standard, relied on future visits by adoptive parents | Remanded for proper standard and reconsideration |
| Whether the sibling relationship exception applies | Father: siblings’ bond weighs against termination | Adoption benefits outweigh sibling bond | Terminating rights not warranted given adoption benefits outweighed by bonds, but remand possible |
| Whether the Indian child exception applies | Appellants: heritage and tribal membership at issue; ICWA should apply | Children not Indian children; no need for ICWA applicability | ICWA exception not proven; court properly concluded not applicable (subject to challenge on remand) |
| Adequacy of ICWA notices and active efforts to enroll in Cherokee/Seneca tribes | Notices and active efforts insufficient for tribes; tribal enrollment steps needed | Department reasonably pursued enrollment; notices sufficient | Notices require limited correction for Seneca tribes on remand; active efforts supported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jasmine D., 78 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. App. 4th 2000) (abuse of discretion standard for parent-child relationship exception; high level of discretion in weighing factors)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. App. 4th 1994) (balance of parent-child bond against permanency; factors include age and attachment)
- In re S.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (arrival of unenforceable promises by prospective adoptive parents in weighing bond)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 2003) (parent-child and sibling relationship considerations; adoption favored absent compelling reasons)
- In re L. Y. L., 101 Cal.App.4th 942 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (strong emphasis on evaluating long-term consequences of termination of parental rights)