In Re Albert B.
Tulare County Department of Public Social Services v. Albert B.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Best, J.
Statement of the Case
On December 16, 1986, an amended petition was filed alleging that Albert B., and Rosemary B. came within Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (d), and requesting that they be declared dependents of the juvenile court. Specifically, the petition alleged that the *367 minors’ home was an unfit place due to neglect because Rosemary was malnourished and suffering from “failure to thrive,” both minors were extremely dirty and their parents had failed to provide the necessary medical care because Rosemary had severe cradle cap and severe diaper rash. Albert was bom on May 17, 1985, and was 18 months old at the time. Rosemary was born on July 29, 1986, and was 5 months old at the time. Both minors were taken into custody.
On January 27, 1987, a contested jurisdictional hearing was held. The minors were represented by the district attorney. The court found the allegations in the petition to be true on counts I and II.
On March 3, 1987, a dispositional hearing was held. The minors were adjudged dependents and custody was taken from the parents and given to the department of social services.
On September 16, 1987, a semiannual…
Concurring Opinion
Dibiaso, J.
I agree this matter must return to the juvenile court for evidentiary resolution of the question of adoptability. I write separately to express a concern about the retroactive application of Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.25, subdivision (j). Simply put, the conclusion that subdivision (j) is retroactive is not compelled and is pregnant with the potential for injustice to parties not involved in this case.
The arguments in favor of retroactive application are: (1) the Legislature presumably knew the terms of subdivision (i) and passed subdivision (j) with that knowledge; and (2) the state Supreme Court has endorsed retroactive application of subdivision (j) by denying a petition for review in In re T.M. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 314 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 535 ] (hereafter T.M.) on *386 February 16, 1989, and, a week later, dismissing as improvidently granted petitions for review in several cases raising appealability issues.
1. Legislative Intent
Section 366.25, subdivision (j) was one of the products of Senate Bill No. I860, 1987-1988 Regular Session (SB 1860). State Senator Presley, the author of SB 1860, viewed the bill in relevant part as clarifying that “permanent…
Opinion
Ann Jory, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.
OPINION
BEST, J.
On December 16, 1986, an amended petition was filed alleging that Albert B., and Rosemary B. came within Welfare and Institutions Code [1] section 300, subdivisions (a) and (d), and requesting that they be declared dependents of the juvenile court. Specifically, the petition alleged that the minors' home was an unfit place due to neglect because Rosemary was malnourished and suffering from "failure to thrive," both minors were extremely dirty and their parents had failed to provide the necessary medical care because Rosemary had severe cradle cap and severe diaper rash. Albert was born on May 17, 1985, and was 18 months old at the time. Rosemary was born on July 29, 1986, and was 5 months old at the time. Both minors were taken into custody.
On January 27, 1987, a contested jurisdictional hearing was held. The minors were represented by the district attorney. The court found the allegations in the petition to be true on counts I and II.
On March 3, 1987, a dispositional hearing was held. The minors were adjudged dependents and custody was taken from the parents and given to the department of…