In re E.L. - Case Brief

5 Mins read

In re E.L.

Case Number: B316261

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2022-08-23

Case Brief – In re E.L.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: B316261
Disposition: The orders terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father are affirmed.

Holding

The court held that the trial court’s termination of the biological parents’ rights was supported by substantial evidence, that California Probate Code §1516.5’s best‑interest analysis favored adoption by the guardian, and that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply; consequently, the appellate court admitted the parties’ ICWA‑020 form and tribal responses under California Code of Civil Procedure §909 and affirmed the termination orders.

The appeal arose from a Ventura County Superior Court order terminating the parental rights of both biological parents, D.L. (Mother) and E.O. (Father), in a petition filed by Aida R., the children’s legal guardian. The petition invoked Probate Code §1516.5.2, which permits termination when the child has resided with a guardian for at least two years and adoption would be in the child’s best interest. The trial court, after hearing testimony from the four minor siblings, the guardian, and the father, entered orders terminating both parents’ rights and allowing adoption by Aida R. The mother, who had not testified at trial and had abruptly left the courtroom, sought to reopen the evidence to testify; the trial court denied her request for lack of good cause. Both parents appealed.

On appeal, the court first addressed whether additional evidence could be taken under CCP §909. The statute authorizes a reviewing court to consider evidence not presented at trial when it serves the interests of justice and avoids unnecessary remand. Citing In re Zeth (31 Cal.4th 396, 405) for the principle that §909 should be used sparingly, the court nevertheless emphasized the liberal construction language of the provision and the public‑policy imperative of achieving permanency for children. Accordingly, the court admitted the mother’s ICWA‑020 form asserting possible Tohono O’odham ancestry and the tribe’s letters confirming that none of the children nor the parents are tribal members.

The core issue was whether the termination order met the “clear and convincing” and “substantial evidence” standards required by Probate Code §1516.5. The appellate court found the record undisputed on the first two statutory prerequisites: the parents lacked legal custody and the children had lived with the guardian for more than five years. Substantial evidence showed that Aida R. had provided a stable, nurturing home, addressed the children’s special‑education and mental‑health needs, and that the children themselves expressed a desire to be adopted by her. By contrast, the father’s incarceration from 2015 to 2020, intermittent jail visits, and limited post‑release contact did not constitute a sufficient parent‑child relationship to outweigh the children’s need for permanency. The court relied on Guardianship of Ann S. (45 Cal.4th 1110, 1132) for the breadth of “best‑interest” factors and on Conservatorship of O.B. (9 Cal.5th 989, 1011) for the substantial‑evidence standard.

Mother’s challenge to the denial of her testimony was rejected. The trial court’s finding that she left the hearing without good cause—first to catch a bus, then citing illness—was deemed credible. The appellate court noted that she offered no “offer of proof” and that reopening evidence would contravene procedural rules and delay adoption.

Finally, the court examined whether ICWA applied. Under 25 U.S.C. §1901 et seq. and Welfare and Institutions Code §224.2, a court must inquire into Indian status when there is reason to know a child is Indian. The mother’s ICWA‑020 form and the tribe’s confirmations that none of the parties are members eliminated any such reason. The court therefore concluded that ICWA did not bar termination or adoption.

In affirming the trial court, the appellate panel underscored the primacy of the child’s best interests and the necessity of swift resolution in dependency cases, warning that unnecessary reversals “undermine the public interest in prompt permanency” (In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295, 310).

Impact: The decision reinforces the deference appellate courts must give to trial courts’ best‑interest findings under Probate Code §1516.5, clarifies the limited scope of ICWA where tribal affiliation is absent, and confirms that CCP §909 may be employed to admit post‑judgment evidence that expedites adoption without requiring remand.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • California Code of Civil Procedure §909 (reviewing court evidence)
  • California Probate Code §1516.5 (termination of parental rights)
  • Welfare and Institutions Code §224.2 (ICWA notice requirements)
  • 25 U.S.C. §§1901‑1912 (Indian Child Welfare Act)
  • Clear and convincing evidence standard (Probate Code)
  • Substantial evidence/abuse of discretion standard (Conservatorship of O.B.)
  • Best‑interest of the child factors (Guardianship of Ann S.)

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Zeth, 31 Cal.4th 396 (2003) – limits on §909
  • Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (2009) – best‑interest analysis
  • Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) – evidentiary standards
  • In re Josiah Z., 36 Cal.4th 664 (2005) – substantial rights under ICWA
  • Jn re Allison B., 79 Cal.App.5th 214 (2022) – post‑judgment evidence on appeal
  • In re Dezt C., 79 Cal.App.5th 769 (2022) – structural error doctrine
  • In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) – public‑policy of prompt permanency.