In re E.M. CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 2015 No. F071245Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the sibling relationship exception to adoption and that the parents forfeited their right to challenge the ICWA notice findings by failing to raise them in a timely manner.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the sibling relationship exception to adoption under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v).
Whether the parents forfeited their right to challenge the adequacy of ICWA notice by failing to raise the issue in a timely appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In evaluating detriment resulting from the severance of a sibling relationship, the juvenile court considers the detriment to the child and not to the child’s siblings.”

“We conclude appellants forfeited their right to appellate review of the juvenile court’s ICWA finding.”

“We conclude the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in finding the sibling relationship exception did not apply and affirm its orders terminating appellants’ parental rights.”

Filed 12/15/15 In re E.M. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re E.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, F071245 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13JD0090) v. PATRICK M., Defendant and Appellant. OPINION In re E.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, F071393 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13JD0090) v. E.S., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge.

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.

Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Patrick M. Mara Carman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.S. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, John A. Rozum, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Abel C. Martinez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.1 -ooOoo- Appellants Patrick M. (father) and E.S. (mother) appeal from a juvenile court judgment terminating their parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)2 concerning their seven-year-old son, Eli, and four-year- old son, Ian.3 They contend the juvenile court erred in not applying the exception to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), the “sibling relationship” exception. They also contend the juvenile court and the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) failed to comply with their duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C.A. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In December 2013, Hanford Police were dispatched to a motel to investigate a report father was having sex with two juvenile females and providing them methamphetamine. Father was the maintenance man at the motel. He and mother, their two children, Eli and Ian, then five and two years old respectively, and father’s teenage children, then 16-year-old Chelsea and 13-year-old Patrick, resided in one of the motel

1 While this case arose and remains in Kings County Juvenile Court, the Kings County Human Services Agency and County Counsel’s Office declared a conflict of interest. Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency and County Counsel’s Office took over the case as a courtesy. 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 3 Father and mother each join the arguments raised by the other. On our own motion, we consolidate their appeals.

In re E.M. CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief