In re Z.G. et al.; consolidated with In re A.G. on Habeas Corpus

Summary

The California Supreme Court addresses whether a juvenile court may terminate parental rights based solely on a finding that a child is likely to be adopted when the parent did not receive or was not properly bypassed for reunification services. The court holds that a likelihood-of-adoption finding alone is insufficient and concludes that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert the mother's entitlement to services and to challenge the termination of services and setting of the permanency planning hearing. The court reverses and remands.

Holdings

1. A juvenile court may terminate parental rights at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing only if it finds both that the child is likely to be adopted and that one of the additional statutory findings identified in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) exists. A likelihood-of-adoption finding alone is insufficient.
2. The record did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to make a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to Z.G.’s removal. Thus, it was not reasonably probable that the juvenile court would have lawfully bypassed reunification services for A.G., and the statutory error was not harmless.
3. Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to assert her statutory right to reunification services as to A.G. and failed to seek writ review of the order terminating services and setting the section 366.26 hearing.
4. The termination of parental rights as to Z.G. was also reversible because it was at least reasonably probable that the juvenile court would find a compelling reason that termination would be detrimental to Z.G. due to substantial interference with her sibling relationship with A.G.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), permits termination of parental rights based solely on a likelihood-of-adoption finding, without an additional statutory basis for termination.
2. Whether the failure to provide Mother reunification services as to A.G. was harmless because services could have been bypassed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)(A).
3. Whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to assert her statutory entitlement to reunification services as to A.G. and failed to prosecute writ review of the order terminating services and setting the section 366.26 hearing.
4. Whether the sibling-relationship exception independently supported reversal of the termination of parental rights as to Z.G.
5. Whether habeas corpus was available to challenge the earlier dependency orders despite statutory writ deadlines and the asserted lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded