Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court

Introduction

This petition for a writ of mandate was filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) in a dependency *3 matter in the following context. Parental rights had been terminated. Department requested that the minor, who was then living with prospective adoptive parents in Oregon, be returned to the care of his foster mother in Los Angeles pending a decision on permanent placement. The foster mother had cared for the child almost his entire life. She had consistently expressed her interest in adopting him and had consistently received favorable evaluations about her care of him. The trial court denied Department’s request. That denial was error. A trial court can only deny such a request if the Department has abused its discretion in mating its decision. In this matter, the record fails to demonstrate Department’s decision was an abuse of discretion. We therefore grant Department the requested relief.

Factual and Procedural Background

Paul C. (Paul) was bom on December 1, 1995. At birth, both Paul and his mother Paula C. tested positive for cocaine. Five days later, the Department filed a petition. (Welf. & Inst. Code,…

I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that the question of whether Cordelia B. or Mr. and Mrs. G. should adopt Paul is not at issue in this writ petition, and I too conclude that the juvenile court should be directed to vacate its order denying the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS) request to transfer Paul from the G.’s home to Cordelia B.’s home. However, I reach this conclusion on different grounds, and my reasoning leads me to dissent in part from the relief ordered by the majority.

The attack on the constitutionality of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (j), 1 made by Paul, the G.’s, and the court appointed special advocate (CASA) persuades me to diverge from my colleagues’ views. Substantial justice calls out for this court to consider arguments on the important constitutional issue involved in this case, even though it was not raised before the juvenile court. (See Bonner v. City of Santa Ana (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1476-1477 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 ].)

Children like Paul who have been freed for adoption are not chattels, and we should not lose sight of their deepest interests in the…

Linda R. Peck and Mitchell L. Beckloff for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

VOGEL (C.S.), P.J. —

This petition for a writ of mandate was filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) in a dependency matter in the following context. Parental rights had been terminated. Department requested that the minor, who was then living with prospective adoptive parents in Oregon, be returned to the care of his foster mother in Los Angeles pending a decision on permanent placement. The foster mother had cared for the child almost his entire life. She had consistently expressed her interest in adopting him and had consistently received favorable evaluations about her care of him. The trial court denied Department's request. That denial was error. A trial court can only deny such a request if the Department has abused its discretion in making its decision. In this matter, the record fails to demonstrate Department's decision was an abuse of discretion. We therefore grant Department the requested relief.

Paul C. (Paul) was born on December 1, 1995. At birth, both Paul and his mother Paula C. tested positive for cocaine. Five days later, the…