Dependency Case Law

In re Jacob S. (Dec. 23, 2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1011 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d. 654]. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to three of her five children after the three children came to the attention of the Orange County Social Services Agency (agency). The agency recommended termination of reunification services at the 12-month review due to the mother’s failure to see a therapist regularly and complete a substance abuse program. The juvenile court agreed with the agency’s recommendation, terminated reunification services, and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing. At the section 366.26 hearing, evidence was presented relating to the relationships between the siblings and how those relationships might be affected by termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated parental rights for the two children living with their grandparents; the court also determined that adoption for the third quadriplegic child was probable, but that he might be difficult to place. The juvenile court then set another hearing for 6 months later to determine the quadriplegic child’s adoptability. The mother appealed the juvenile court decision, arguing (1) section 366.26(c)(1)(E) provides an exception to termination of parental rights if the termination would substantially interfere with the child’s sibling relationships and (2) there is no evidence to support the court’s finding that her quadriplegic child is adoptable.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s decision and held that (1) the section 366.26(c)(1)(E) sibling bond exception did not apply and (2) the mother’s contention that the quadriplegic child was not adoptable was premature. While the mother has standing to raise this issue on appeal because it involves an immediate consequence resulting from her legally cognizant interest in the relationship with her children, the appellate court found that the sibling bond exception did not apply despite the fact that the siblings were very close. The appellate court emphasized that the mere existence of a sibling relationship is not enough to invoke the sibling bond exception; the relationship must be “sufficiently significant” to cause detriment on termination of parental rights. The appellate court stated that if substantial detriment exists, the court must weigh the child’s best interest in continuing the sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive from adoption.

The appellate court also held that until the juvenile court made the final determination about the adoptability of the quadriplegic child, the mother’s claim contesting the decision was not ripe for review. The appellate court noted that the juvenile court did not find that the quadriplegic child was likely to be adopted, but determined only that adoption of the child was probable and may be difficult due to the child’s disability. The appellate court reasoned that section 366.26(c)(3) provides that a court may identify adoption as the permanent placement goal and, without terminating parental rights, order that efforts be made to locate an adoptive family within a period not to exceed 180 days. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s decision terminating the mother’s parental rights to three of her children.