In re K.T.

Summary

In August 2017, J.F. gave birth to K. In September 2017, K.'s father beat J.F., snatched K., and deliberately hit J.F. with a car. San Bernardino County Department of Child and Family Services (CFS) detained the child, placed him with his mother, and filed a dependency petition. The dependency court sustained jurisdiction. J.F. then failed multiple drug tests, failed to attend parenting classes, and evaded K.'s social worker. In December 2017, the court removed the child from her custody. A CT scan eventually indicated K. had suffered "abusive head trauma" and "neuronal loss or dysfunction". He was placed with relatives, Mr. and Mrs. B. (the B.'s). Relations between CFS and the B.'s quickly deteriorated. CFS accused the B.'s of evasion; the B.'s accused CFS staff of discrimination. CFS eventually removed K. because he had to be placed in a "special health care needs" foster home. It filed a Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 387 petition to formally remove K. The B.'s filed a Section 388 petition to regain custody. The court sustained CFS' petition and denied the B.s' petition. The B.'s appealed. CFS challenged their standing to appeal on the grounds that they were not parties to the Section 387 petition. The parties stipulated that the B.'s and K. are related.

Affirmed. "[A]ny person having an interest recognized by law in the subject matter of the judgment, which interest is injuriously affected by the judgment' is considered a 'party aggrieved' for the purpose of appellate standing". Cesar V. v. Superior Court. The panel found that WIC Section 361.3 mandates that minors be placed with relatives unless those relatives are found to be unfit. Here, it was undisputed that the parties were relatives. While the B.'s may not have not been a party to the original dependency case, when the court denied their 388 petition it effectively denied their request for placement under Section 361.3. That denial functionally brought them before the court as a party, giving them standing to appeal the court's order. On the merits, the panel denied the B.'s appeal, thus affirming CFS' placement order.

— Charles Kohorst