Skip to content
Name: In re K.L.
Case #: C079100
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/18/2018

ICWA procedures and requirements were not triggered where Indian child was placed with his presumed father because placement was not foster care within meaning of the ICWA. The Agency filed a petition concerning the minor and his older half sibling when mother was arrested. The petition alleged that the minor's father was unknown. L.V. was the father of the half sibling and believed for several months that he was the minor's father. He took the minor into his home and treated him as such. When DNA testing showed he was not the father, he continued to treat…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Maria Q.
Case #: D073296
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/23/2018

The relative placement preference under section 361.3 does not apply to a relative's request for placement after the juvenile court has held a section 366.26 hearing and the child remains in foster care pursuant to section 366.26, subd. (b)(7). Y.M. had four children who were dependents of the juvenile court, two girls and two boys. The girls were placed together in a foster home of the Z.'s, and the boys in a different foster placement. Y.M. identified the children's great aunt (Aunt) as a possible placement for the children. The 366.26 hearing was delayed and the minors…

View Full Summary
Name: In re M.W.
Case #: E068981
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/30/2018

The foster mother's status as a former caregiver did not disqualify her home as a supervised independent living placement. Dependency jurisdiction over the 19-year-old nonminor dependent, M.W., was terminated by the juvenile court in August, 2017. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over M.W. because he had moved in with a former foster parent, and the court believed that a former caregiver's home did not qualify as a "supervised independent living placement" (SILP). On appeal, M.W. contended that the juvenile court erred because he wanted to remain in extended foster care and living with a former caregiver did not…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.K.
Case #: E068464
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 04/11/2018

Juvenile court did not err when it found that the Agency used due diligence to locate relatives before removing a newborn from his mother's care. The minor was removed from his mother at birth due to mother's untreated substance abuse. He was placed with a foster family. On appeal, mother challenged the court's finding that the social worker exercised due diligence in conducting an investigation to locate and notify relatives of the minor's removal, under section 358, subdivision (b)(2). Mother contended that the Agency relied only on her and did not search its records for other dependency cases…

View Full Summary
Name: In re M.H.
Case #: A151964
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/06/2018

At a 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying request to change minor's placement from his current nonrelative foster home to the home of his maternal great aunt. In a section 366.26 report, the Agency recommended adoption as the permanent plan for the minor. The minor was bonded to his foster family, but two different maternal relatives had traveled to meet him. The Agency recommended a change in placement to one of his relatives, E.W., a maternal great aunt who lived in Minnesota. Although the Agency acknowledged concerns regarding moving the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Christian K.
Case #: A151695
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/21/2018

Juvenile court did not err by ordering overseas trip for minor, even if the minor would have benefited from additional therapy before going. Parental rights to the minor were terminated. Paternal grandparents, who live in Denmark, expressed interest in adopting the minor. The Department recommended weekly therapy for the minor to work on his relationship with his grandmother. The therapy was interrupted because of the foster family's unwillingness to provide transportation. Grandmother scheduled a month-long visit for the minor to visit her in Denmark prior to a permanent move. The juvenile court ordered the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.G.
Case #: D072293
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/02/2018

Juvenile court erred when it allowed minors to remain in placement with their aunt who failed to provide them adequate food. Minors were placed with M.G. (Aunt) in 2014, after their father killed their mother and was sentenced to prison. In 2016, the Department filed a supplemental petition alleging that placement with Aunt had not been effective, because the younger children had been diagnosed with nonorganic failure to thrive, and the youngest with severe malnutrition. The minors were detained, and gained weight rapidly in foster care. A psychiatric evaluation of Aunt showed that she had an…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.F.
Case #: D072226
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/20/2017

Tribe's letter expressing a placement preference did not modify the statutory placement preference and therefore did not require a good cause finding to move minor to a different family member. At the time of the dependency proceeding, the minor had been living with her father in a motor home on the property of paternal grandmother, Donna. When the minor was removed, Donna immediately asked for custody. The court found that ICWA applied, and placed the minor with a maternal cousin, Liesha, on the Tribe's reservation. At the disposition hearing, the Tribe and the Agency recommended placement…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.K.
Case #: C081545
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/09/2017

Father had no standing to challenge the court's failure to consider relative placement after reunification had been terminated, and even if he had standing, he forfeited the issue by not raising it in the juvenile court. Father contended on appeal that the order terminating his parental rights must be reversed because the Department and juvenile court failed to assess the paternal grandmother's request for placement under the requirements of section 361.3. The appellate court found that since father's services had been terminated, he could not establish that his rights in reunification were affected by the failure to consider…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Carl H.
Case #: A147220
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/23/2017

Juvenile court erred when it dismissed dependency jurisdiction and returned the minor to the custody of his father. After sustaining a 300(f) petition alleging mother's role in the death of minor Carl Jr.'s sibling, the juvenile court dismissed dependency jurisdiction, returning Carl Jr. to the custody of his father, Carl Sr. Carl Jr. appealed, asserting that the court erred in dismissing the petition because further findings were required by rule or statute, and the court could not return him to his father's care without ordering services. He argued that the court erroneously believed the law compelled it…

View Full Summary