Humboldt Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. A.B. (In re J.R.)
| Decision Date | 22 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | A164334 |
| Citation | 82 Cal.App.5th 526,297 Cal.Rptr.3d 919 |
| Parties | IN RE J.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.B., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Erin W. Keefe, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Scott A. Miles, Interim County Counsel, Anne H. Nguyen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A.B.’s (mother's) two young sons, J.R. who is now nearly four years old and B.R. who is now nearly three, were removed from her custody as a one-and-a-half-year-old toddler (J.R.) and a six-month-old infant (B.R.). She appeals orders entered about a year and a half later terminating her parental rights, arguing the juvenile court erred in its consideration of the beneficial relationship exception ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i) ).1 She contends the matter must be remanded for a new section 366.26 hearing because the juvenile court relied on factors that are legally erroneous under In re Caden C . (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 872, 486 P.3d 1096, a decision clarifying the exception's scope that was decided about six months before the section 366.26 hearing took place in this case.
We affirm the orders terminating parental rights, but do not reach the merits of the legal question mother raises because the record does not contain evidence that would support application of the beneficial relationship exception. We publish portions of this decision to clarify that when a juvenile court applies the wrong legal standard in rejecting the beneficial relationship exception, reversal is not warranted if the parent did not introduce evidence that would permit a finding in their favor under the correct legal standard. When a parent has not done so, any reliance by the juvenile court on improper factors is harmless. In the unpublished portion of this opinion we explain why mother failed to do so here.
The two young boys were removed from the custody of both of their parents, who are married, by the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (agency) in May 2020, after a string of child abuse and neglect referrals stemming from repeated bouts of domestic violence between the couple, concerns over parental substance abuse and, in mother's case, mental health concerns. As noted, J.R. was then 19 months old and B.R. was 6 months old. They were placed into foster care together, later joined by a newborn sister who was detained in a separate case (not at issue here) after mother tested positive for drugs at her birth.
The juvenile court sustained allegations that the two young boys were at substantial risk of both serious physical and emotional harm due to their exposure to ongoing domestic violence in the home, father's methamphetamine abuse and mother's self-reported depression that was contributing to her inability to protect them ( § 300, subds. (b), (c) ). During the case, mother's struggles with substance abuse also became an issue. The parents received 12 months of reunification services, which were terminated on August 12, 2021. Later, after mother entered a residential drug treatment program, she filed a petition under section 388 asking the court to reinstate her reunification services. The matter was calendared for an evidentiary hearing at the same time as the section 366.26 hearing.
By the time the combined sections 366.26/388 evidentiary hearing took place in December 2021, J.R. had just turned three years old and B.R. two, and the little boys had been out of their parents’ custody for nearly 19 months. The evidence at the hearing consisted of several reports and other pre-hearing filings,2 and brief testimony by a social worker and mother. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied mother's section 388 petition and terminated parental rights over both children.
In rendering these rulings, it made extensive oral comments from the bench that are the focus of mother's appellate arguments but, for the reasons below, are unnecessary to examine.
These timely appeals by mother followed.
As noted, about six months before the section 366.26 hearing took place, the Supreme Court decided In re Caden C . (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 872, 486 P.3d 1096 ( Caden C . ), which addressed the purpose and scope of the beneficial relationship exception ( § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i) ), a statutory doctrine that allows the juvenile court, in appropriate circumstances, to deviate from the presumptively preferred option of choosing adoption as a child's permanent plan after reunification has failed. In essence, the Court explained, when a child cannot safely be returned to a parent's custody, this exception preserves the child's right to maintain a relationship with the child's parent "if severing that relationship would, on balance, harm the child." ( Caden C., at p. 643, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 872, 486 P.3d 1096.) Extended discussion of the doctrine's mechanics and elements is unnecessary. (See generally In re J.D. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 833, 284 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 ( J.D . ) [].) But one aspect bears mention: the burden of proving this exception is on the parent, by a preponderance of the evidence. (See Caden C. , at p. 636, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 872, 486 P.3d 1096 ; J.D. , at pp. 854, 869, 284 Cal.Rptr.3d 608.)
In her opening brief, mother raises a single issue. She maintains the juvenile court considered an improper factor in assessing the second element of this test, which requires a parent to show that "the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." ( Caden C. , supra , 11 Cal.5th at pp. 636, 640, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 872, 486 P.3d 1096.) She asserts the case must be remanded because "rather than assessing whether Mother and her sons had a beneficial relationship as defined by Caden C. , the juvenile court appears to have considered whether there was a ‘parental-bond’ between Mother and her children." Thus, she maintains, the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating the second element.
It is unnecessary to decide whether any error occurred (nor whether, as urged by the agency, any such error was invited by mother herself during her closing arguments) because mother was not prejudiced by any such error.3 As we will explain, unlike in cases where this court and others have remanded for errors of a nature claimed here to be similar, the record in this case would not support a finding in mother's favor on the parental benefit exception even if her evidence were credited. We will address mother's argument on that factual point in the unpublished portion of our opinion.
We do not reverse dependency cases for harmless error. As our Supreme Court has explained: ( In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 59, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 432, 71 P.3d 787 []; see also, e.g., In re Shannon M. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 282, 302, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 199 []; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13 ; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)
When a trial court applies the wrong legal standard, a remand for further proceedings is certainly appropriate if an appellate court announces a new legal standard and it is unclear from the record whether the trial court would have reached the same result had it not lacked appellate guidance. (See In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 166-167, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 597, 194 P.3d 330 ; see also Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 824, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 87, 29 P.3d 175 ; Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 803, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 978 P.2d 2 ; accord, Young v. Superior Court of Solano County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 169, 294 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 ; Guerrero v. Hestrin (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 172, 190, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 183.) After all, in such a situation the record might not be fully developed ( Charlisse C. , at p. 167, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 597, 194 P.3d 330 ) and obvious considerations of fairness are implicated as well (see Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 931, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, 135 P.3d 637 []). Plus, "appellate courts should be wary of finding harmless error ‘[w]hen a counterfactual inquiry appears too difficult to responsibly undertake, or a counterfactual conclusion relies on inferences that really amount to guesswork.’ " ( In re Christopher L. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1063, 1082, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 815, 508 P.3d 776.) Thus, consistent with this general framework, this court in J.D. , supra , 70 Cal.App.5th 833, 284 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 and other courts along with us have reversed juvenile court rulings that were entered before Caden C. was decided for legal error that Caden C . made apparent, when the evidence adduced at the section 366.26 hearing could have supported application of the beneficial relationship exception had the juvenile court had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Kimberly S. (In re Vict. A.)
... ... physical health and safety and placed her at risk of serious ... ...
- L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Johnny M. (In re Derek M.)
-
Marin Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. A.A. (In re N.A.-O.)
...so to avert the very problem she now says occurred. Had she done so, this appeal perhaps could have been avoided." (In re J.R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 526, 531, fn. 3 (J.R.).) In any event, mother's arguments are unpersuasive and provide no basis for reversal. Mother asserts that "as to the s......
-
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. D.T. (In re Anthony P.)
...from the record whether the trial court would have reached the same result had it not lacked appellate guidance." (In re J.R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 526, 532.)[5] Thus, I agree with those courts that have reversed juvenile court rulings that were entered before Caden C. was decided "when the......