In re K.C.

• Decision Date: 21 July 2011
• Docket Number: No. S183320.,S183320.
• Citation: 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 276,255 P.3d 953,52 Cal.4th 231
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: In re K.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.Kings County Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.J.C., Defendant and Appellant.

52 Cal.4th 231

255 P.3d 953

128 Cal.Rptr.3d 276

11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9189

2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,003

In re K.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.Kings County Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.J.C., Defendant and Appellant.

No. S183320.

Supreme Court of California

July 21, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Monica Vogelmann, San Diego, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.Peter D. Moock and Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Johannah Hartley, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.Jennifer B. Henning for California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.WERDEGAR, J.

[52 Cal.4th 234 , 255 P.3d 954]

The question before us in this dependency case is whether a father whose parental rights have been terminated (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)),¹ and who does not challenge that decision, has standing to appeal an order entered at the same hearing denying a petition by the dependent child's grandparents to have the child placed with them ( §§ 361.3, 366.26, subd. (k), 388). We hold the father does not have standing to appeal the order concerning placement.

I. BACKGROUND

Only the question of standing is before us. We have no occasion to review the merits of the superior court's order denying the petition concerning placement (§ 388) or the judgment terminating parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)). Accordingly, the facts underlying those rulings do not affect our decision, and we offer only the briefest summary of them.

K.C., the subject of this proceeding, is the youngest of eight children born to father, the appellant in this case, and to mother, who has not appealed. K.C. was born in September 2008. Five of his siblings survive. Another sibling died at birth, and the eldest, J.C., died in October 2008 at the age of 15 after jumping from a moving car driven by mother. In separate proceedings, the juvenile court in Tulare County has declared K.C.'s siblings to be dependents, terminated mother's and father's parental rights as to them, and placed the siblings with their paternal grandparents (grandparents).

Six weeks after J.C. died, K.C. was removed from mother's custody in Kings County, declared to be a dependent child (§ 300), and placed with a foster parent who wishes to adopt him. Grandparents asked respondent Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) to place K.C. in their home with his siblings. Although grandparents' home met the applicable licensing requirements, the agency denied the request based on a variety of concerns, including, among others, mother's and father's continuing access to grandparents' home, questions about grandparents' ability to care for a sixth child, and a suicide attempt in grandparents' home by J.C. in 2007. The Kings County Juvenile Court bypassed reunification services for both parents because of their failure to reunify with K.C.'s siblings (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)), as well as their history of drug and alcohol abuse ( id., subd. (b)(13)), and scheduled a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for K.C. (§ 366.26).

Grandparents filed a petition to modify K.C.'s existing placement (§ 388) by placing him in their home. The juvenile court heard the matter at a contested hearing immediately preceding the selection and implementation hearing. At the hearing, the agency reiterated its previously expressed concerns about placing K.C. with grandparents and called witnesses to support its position. In opposition, grandparents called child welfare officials from Tulare County, who testified that K.C.'s siblings were doing well in grandparents' care, and the principal of the siblings' school, who expressed satisfaction with their academic progress. Father, who was transported from prison in custody to appear at the hearing, stated he believed K.C. should be placed with grandparents. Neither father nor his counsel, however, offered any argument against terminating father's parental rights. Mother, who was incarcerated and awaiting deportation, did not appear.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court denied grandparents' petition to modify K.C.'s placement, selected adoption as the permanent plan, and terminated mother's and father's parental rights. Father filed a notice of appeal from both the order denying grandparents' petition and the judgment terminating his rights. In the ensuing appeal, however, father did not argue the court erred or abused its discretion in terminating his rights. Instead, father limited his argument to the question of K.C.'s placement and contended that, should the Court of Appeal reverse the placement order, the court should also reverse the judgment terminating parental rights to restore the parties to their prior positions. (Cf. In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1061–1062, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 556; In re H.G. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1, 18, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 364.) The Court of Appeal, reasoning that father was not aggrieved by the placement decision because it could not be shown to affect his parental rights, dismissed father's appeal. The court also dismissed grandparents' appeal as untimely. We granted father's petition for review.

II. DISCUSSION

The issue before us is one of standing, not appealability. Orders denying petitions under section 388 to modify prior orders of the juvenile court, such as the grandparents' petition in this case to modify the dependent child's placement, are appealable under section 395. Section 395 expressly provides that any order subsequent to the judgment under section 300 declaring a child to be a dependent “may be appealed as an order after judgment.” (§ 395, subd. (a)(1); see In re Aaron R. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 697, 702–703, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 921.)

Not every party has standing to appeal every appealable order. Although standing to appeal is construed liberally, and doubts are resolved in its favor, only a person aggrieved by a decision may appeal. (E.g., In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 948, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 688; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 902 [“Any party aggrieved may appeal....”].) An aggrieved person, for this purpose, is one whose rights or interests are injuriously affected by the decision in an immediate and substantial way, and not as a nominal or remote consequence of the decision. ( In re L.Y.L., supra, at p. 948, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 688; see County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 737, 97 Cal.Rptr. 385, 488 P.2d 953; In re Estate of Colton (1912) 164 Cal. 1, 5, 127 P. 643.) These rules apply with full force to appeals from dependency proceedings. (E.g., In re L.Y.L., supra, at p. 948, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 688.)

To determine whether father is aggrieved by the juvenile court's order declining to place K.C. with grandparents, we must therefore precisely identify father's interest in the matter. All parents, unless and until their parental rights are terminated, have an interest in their children's “companionship, care, custody and management....” ( In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 306, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 851 P.2d 826.) This interest is a “compelling one, ranked among the most basic of civil rights.” ( Ibid.) While the overarching goal of the dependency law is to safeguard the welfare of dependent children and to promote their best interests (e.g., In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 140, 203 P.3d 454; In re A.M. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 914, 925, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 620), the law's first priority when dependency proceedings are commenced is to preserve family relationships, if possible. ( In re Nolan W., supra, at p. 1228, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 140, 203 P.3d 454.) To this end, the law requires the juvenile court to provide reunification services unless a statutory exception applies. (See ibid.; § 361.5.) In contrast, after reunification services are terminated or bypassed (as in this case), “the parents' interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child [is] no longer paramount. Rather, at this point ‘the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability....’ ” ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 595, 867 P.2d 706, quoting In re Marilyn H., supra, at p. 309, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 851 P.2d 826.) For this reason, the decision to terminate or bypass reunification services ordinarily constitutes a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) A few statutory exceptions to this rule permit the juvenile court not to terminate parental rights when compelling reasons show termination would be detrimental to the child. ( Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)-(vi).) But father did not argue below, and does not argue now, that any such exception applies. Indeed, as noted, father does not contend the order terminating his parental rights was improper in any respect. That he has no remaining, legally cognizable interest in K.C.'s affairs, including his placement, logically follows.

For this reason, the present case is distinguishable from the cases on which father primarily relies, In re H.G., supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 364, and In re Esperanza C., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 556. In both cases, the Court of Appeal concluded that parents whose rights had been terminated were aggrieved by, and thus did have standing to appeal, pretermination orders concerning their children's placement, because the possibility existed that reversing those orders might lead the juvenile court not to terminate parental rights. These cases do not assist father because he makes no such argument.

In re H.G., supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 1, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 364, was an appeal by parents of an order removing their daughter from her grandparents' custody (see § 387) ² and a judgment terminating parental rights. The Court of Appeal reversed the order taking the child from her grandparents because the juvenile court had failed to comply with section 361.3, which mandates preferential...