Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved with a family after law enforcement discovered child pornography in the parents' home. Both parents admitted to possessing child pornography, and the mother admitted to posting inappropriate images of their daughter, M.V., online. M.V. was subsequently placed with her paternal grandparents, and the juvenile court sustained allegations of sexual exploitation against both parents, declaring M.V. a dependent child and removing her from her parents' custody. The parents received reunification services until November 2020, and in December 2021, the juvenile court terminated their parental rights. However, this order was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for a supplemental bonding study and a new permanency planning hearing.On remand, a new expert conducted a bonding study, and the permanency planning hearing took place in June 2024. The court reviewed extensive documentary evidence, including reports on M.V.'s well-being, her relationship with her parents and grandparents, and her expressed wishes to be adopted by her grandparents. The expert, Dr. Gonzalez, concluded that M.V. had a secure attachment to both parents and that terminating the parental relationship could be detrimental to her. However, the court found that the parents had not proven the beneficial parental relationship exception, noting that the expert's opinions were based more on general psychological principles than on the specific facts of the case.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights. The appellate court found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the expert's opinions and that the evidence did not compel a finding in favor of the parents. The court also addressed and dismissed allegations of judicial bias and due process violations raised by the parents. View "In re M.V." on Justia Law

B.V. and L.T. are the parents of two children, B.V. and B.V. The children were removed from their home in February 2021 after being left unattended at a crime scene for 13 hours. B.V. was arrested for attempted murder and burglary, and L.T. could not be located. A temporary custody order was issued to the Mountain Lakes Human Service Zone. B.V. was later convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, with an estimated release date in January 2030. L.T. has not had contact with the Zone since the termination of parental rights petition was filed.The children were adjudicated as needing protection in October 2021, and a 12-month custody order was issued to the Zone. A permanency hearing in November 2022 extended the custody order by six months. The children were taken to Arizona by their maternal aunt in April 2023, but the placement was unsuccessful, and they returned to North Dakota in September 2023. L.T. sporadically attempted visitation but lost contact with the Zone in February 2024. B.V. had minimal contact with the Zone and did not engage in the services offered.The Juvenile Court of Rolette County terminated B.V. and L.T.'s parental rights on October 18, 2024. B.V. appealed, arguing that the Zone did not make active efforts to prevent the breakup of his Indian family as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody by B.V. would likely result in serious harm to the children.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the termination of B.V.'s parental rights. The court found that the Zone made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family, including offering supervised visits and conducting relative searches. The court also found that continued custody by B.V. would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children, supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness. View "Interest of B.V." on Justia Law

Mother conceived M.N. with Father in summer 2020. Before M.N. was born, Mother and her boyfriend initiated adoption proceedings without informing the adoption agency about Father. M.N. was born on March 23, 2021, and Father requested a DNA test at the hospital. In April 2021, Mother and her boyfriend signed adoption consent forms, and the adoption agency petitioned for termination of parental rights. After being identified as a potential father, Father was served notice of the adoption and filed a paternity action within the required timeframe. Genetic testing confirmed Father as the biological father.The juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights, finding he failed to file with the putative fathers registry. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the juvenile court improperly terminated Father’s rights under § 8-533(B)(6) without considering his rights as a potential father under § 8-106. The court of appeals held that genetic testing established Father as a presumed legal father, exempting him from filing with the putative fathers registry.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case to determine if a potential father served with a § 8-106 notice must file a notice of a claim of paternity with the putative fathers registry under § 8-106.01. The court held that a potential father identified and served notice under § 8-106(G) is not required to file with the putative fathers registry. The court emphasized that the potential fathers statute and the putative fathers statute address separate classifications of fathers, each with distinct rights and obligations. The court vacated parts of the court of appeals’ opinion, reversed the juvenile court’s termination order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.N." on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming filed a petition against MF (Mother) and JF (Father) on June 22, 2020, alleging neglect of their minor children, JF and TF. Following a shelter care hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care. After a disposition hearing, the children remained in the custody of the Department of Family Services (the Department), with a permanency plan of family reunification. On January 19, 2024, after an evidentiary permanency hearing, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan to adoption.The juvenile court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court noted that Mother had made some progress but ultimately failed to consistently address the children's needs and safety concerns. The court also found that the children's best interests were served by changing the permanency plan to adoption, given their progress in foster care and the lack of stability and safety in Mother's care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption, as the Department had made reasonable efforts at reunification, which were unsuccessful. The court also found that the juvenile court's decision to cease reunification efforts with Mother was supported by Wyoming law, which allows for discontinuation of such efforts when they are inconsistent with the permanency plan.Additionally, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Mother's due process rights were not violated by the denial of a continuance of the permanency hearing or by the juvenile court's evidentiary rulings. The court found that Mother had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and the juvenile court's decisions were within the bounds of reason. The court also declined to adopt Mother's request for a change in procedures to require compliance with the Wyoming Rules of Evidence in evidentiary permanency hearings. View "In the Interest of: JF v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

G.R. lived with her mother and had no contact with her alleged father, R.R. In 2017, G.R. was hospitalized and diagnosed with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. The Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services became involved when the mother failed to secure necessary mental health services for G.R. The mother did not have contact information for R.R. The juvenile court initially found R.R. to be G.R.'s alleged father, later amending the order to reflect this accurately. R.R. was incarcerated for domestic violence and had an extensive criminal history. The court denied services to R.R. and ordered no visits until he contacted the Department.In May 2018, the juvenile court removed G.R. from her mother's custody and placed her with a maternal aunt. In November 2020, R.R. expressed a desire to have a relationship with G.R., but did not follow through with setting up visits. In January 2023, R.R. filed a deficient section 388 petition, which the juvenile court denied. By June 2023, G.R. had spoken with R.R. by phone but was not ready for in-person visits. In September 2023, the juvenile court appointed G.R.'s caregiver as her legal guardian, ordered monitored visits for R.R., and terminated its jurisdiction.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court dismissed R.R.'s appeal of the juvenile court's order requiring monitored visits, stating that as an alleged father, R.R. could not show he was aggrieved by the order. The court emphasized that an alleged father has no rights to custody, reunification services, or visits unless he establishes paternity and achieves presumed father status. R.R. did not establish paternity, and thus had no standing to appeal the visitation order. View "In re G.R." on Justia Law

A minor child, Baby Girl R., was abandoned by her mother, S.R., shortly after birth. S.R. gave birth in a homeless encampment and was using methamphetamines daily. Baby Girl R. tested positive for the drug and exhibited withdrawal symptoms. S.R. was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold due to paranoia, delusions, and aggression. After being discharged, S.R. left Baby Girl R. at the hospital and returned to the encampment. The Department of Family and Children’s Services initiated dependency proceedings, and Baby Girl R. was placed in protective custody. Despite diligent efforts, the Department could not locate S.R.The juvenile court placed Baby Girl R. in foster care and ordered reunification services for S.R., despite her unknown whereabouts. The court found that S.R.’s location was unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate her. Baby Girl R. appealed, arguing that the court should have bypassed reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1). While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for S.R. at the six-month review hearing and placed Baby Girl R. with her maternal grandparents.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that the appeal was moot due to the termination of reunification services but exercised discretion to address the merits. The court concluded that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) does not mandate bypassing reunification services when a parent’s whereabouts are unknown despite a diligent search. The juvenile court has discretion to grant or deny reunification services in such cases. The appellate court found no error in the juvenile court’s decision to order reunification services for S.R. and affirmed the disposition order. View "In re Baby Girl R." on Justia Law

In April 2022, H.H., the mother of A.E.E., was arrested for the murder of A.E.E.'s father. H.H. provided written consent for A.E.E. to be placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, A.V. and E.V., as emergency co-guardians. The maternal aunt and uncle filed a petition to be appointed as emergency and permanent co-guardians, which the paternal grandparents, K.B. and T.B., opposed, seeking guardianship themselves. The juvenile court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as emergency co-guardians pending a full hearing. After a full hearing, the court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians, and the paternal grandparents did not appeal.Following H.H.'s conviction for murder and her life sentence without parole, the maternal aunt and uncle sought to relocate out of state with A.E.E. The paternal grandparents opposed this motion and sought to remove the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians. The juvenile court granted the relocation and denied the motion to remove the co-guardians, finding that the reasons for the original appointment had not changed and that it was in A.E.E.'s best interests to remain under their guardianship.The paternal grandparents appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its decision, citing H.H.'s conviction and alleging false testimony by the maternal aunt and uncle. They also requested a presumption against appointing family members of a parent convicted of murdering the other parent as guardians. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to modify the guardianship, concluding that the paternal grandparents failed to prove that removal or modification of the guardianship was in A.E.E.'s best interests. View "Interest of A.E.E." on Justia Law

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law

A child, referred to as Liam, suffered severe injuries at one month old, including multiple fractures and bruises, while in the care of his parents. The Onslow County Department of Social Services (DSS) took custody of Liam, who now requires extensive medical care due to cerebral palsy and other conditions resulting from the abuse. Liam was placed with foster parents, Daniel and Jessica Hall, who have provided him with a stable and nurturing environment. Liam's maternal grandfather expressed interest in custody but admitted he could not provide the necessary care.The District Court of Onslow County adjudicated Liam as abused and neglected and held multiple permanency-planning hearings. The court ultimately awarded custody to the Halls, finding that reunification with the parents was not in Liam's best interest due to their inability to explain his injuries and the mother's failure to participate in his medical care. The court also considered but did not find the maternal grandfather a suitable caretaker.The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order, finding the trial court's findings insufficient under relevant statutory provisions. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new hearing.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements, including considerations of the child's best interests and the feasibility of reunification. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order awarding custody to the Halls and converting the case to a Chapter 50 civil custody proceeding. View "In re L.L." on Justia Law

The petitioner, K.S., sought certiorari review of orders issued by the Circuit Court in proceedings under RSA chapter 169-C. K.S. argued that the trial court erred in several ways, including denying her access to information she claimed she had a right to, relying on a "reasonable efforts" standard instead of the child's best interest, not holding an evidentiary hearing before approving her placement in a residential treatment program, denying her request to be placed with her father, and denying her request to involve her grandmother in family therapy and other meetings.The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) had filed petitions alleging neglect by K.S.'s parents, leading to K.S. being placed in various out-of-home settings. Eventually, the court granted DCYF legal custody of K.S. and issued a dispositional order finding that returning K.S. to her parents was not in her best interest. K.S. was hospitalized and later placed in a residential treatment program. The court approved these placements and denied K.S.'s requests for reunification with her father and for additional discovery.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and found that many of K.S.'s arguments were moot due to changes in her circumstances, such as her father's surrender of parental rights and her subsequent placements. The court also held that the trial court did not violate K.S.'s due process rights by not holding an evidentiary hearing before approving her placement in an institutional setting, as the established procedures provided sufficient safeguards. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions, concluding that it did not act illegally or unsustainably exercise its discretion. View "Petition of K.S." on Justia Law