 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Nathaniel B.11/6/2002
m. Further, the adoptions worker cavalierly dismissed the evidence of progress appellant had made in securing a stable non-violent relationship and working full-time to support her 12-year-old daughter.
There are no facts in the record from which the social workers could draw their negative assumptions. Each relied upon third-hand accounts and vacuous concerns. They simply had no facts to support a determination that relative placement was not appropriate. When appellant and her husband attempted to present facts, as suggested by the court at the dispositional hearing, they were rebuffed. DHHS representatives, rather than asking appellant and her husband about the appearances conjured by DHHS representatives, merely brushed them off repeatedly while uttering the mantra that appellant had been rejected as a placement alternative. This occurred, in part, because DHHS was aware of, although indifferent to the existence of the evaluation, and the court was not similarly informed.
Throughout the evaluation process, the social workers steadfastly viewed appellant's circumstances and actions in the most negative manner. They defaulted to vague suspicions and untested assumptions based upon skeletal perceptions of a prior dependency proceeding involving very different circumstances than those currently at issue here. This is especially problematic where, as here, the social workers placed the minor prior to the court having an opportunity to review the facts and failed to timely apprise the court of the facts. By the time the court did have the facts, the minor had been in a prospective adoptive placement for some time and appellant had effectively lost the preference afforded by the statute.
The court, of course, as the primary protector of the minor's best interests, had a duty to insure a full and fair review of all, the facts rather than to cede the responsibility for the placement decision entirely to the social worker. This is particularly true when the relatives are not represented and must act, if at all, through the social workers or attempt to present their views when the court is busy with other matters. We recognize juvenile courts are busy and dockets are heavy, but relatives are statutorily preferred over strangers. Juvenile courts must take the time to evaluate the evidence of appropriate placement. They must not merely direct relatives to talk to social workers who are unwilling to listen.
While it would have been prudent for the court to set a date at the dispositional hearing to review placement, this did not occur. Appellant and her husband were required to press the social workers for information and the opportunity to amplify the record. These efforts were not only futile, but were used against them. Ultimately, the court, misapprehending the appearances sketched by the social workers, believed appellant had chosen her former husband over the half-siblings. Thus, appellant's attempt to shield her grandchildren from abuse was transformed into a sword which prevented her from fair consideration for placement of the minor in her care although she has successfully freed herself from an abusive relationship and may now be able to provide a home for the minor.
Appellant is entitled to a full, fair evaluation and determination by the juvenile court of her current ability to provide a safe, stable home for her grandchild. We express no opinion on whether the minor should be placed with appellant, only that she must be fairly and fully considered, based upon facts, not innuendoes.
DISPOSITION
The orders terminating parental rights and placing the minor for adoption are reversed. The juvenile court is directed to hold a new
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|