Opinion ID: 1241212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: failure to consider alternate care

Text: (4) Appellants argue that the trial court failed to consider alternate care plans for Angelia before terminating the parent-child relationship. Specifically, they contend that the court should have considered the possibility of maintaining the status quo until Mr. P. could obtain counseling and reestablish himself following his release from prison. In In re David B. (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 184 [154 Cal. Rptr. 63], the court noted that It is well recognized that before the parental relationship may be permanently severed, the trial court should consider the availability of less severe alternatives designed to keep the family intact. (P. 198.) However, when such services have not been offered, the decision as to whether the services should be ordered and the proceeding delayed until the results are evaluated lies within the sound discretion of the superior court. ( In re Susan M. (1975) 53 Cal. App.3d 300, 311 [125 Cal. Rptr. 707].) Both the foregoing general principle and its important qualification are sound. In In re Carmaleta B., supra , we emphasized that section 232, subdivision (a)(7), has the added advantage of permitting the parents a longer period, two years, in which to rehabilitate themselves to a position whereby they can properly support this most fundamental responsibility. Such an accommodation, inherent in the structuring of section 232, affords the fullest opportunity to the parents for exercise of their rights not inconsistent with the ultimate best interests of the child. (21 Cal.3d at pp. 491-492.) Here the trial court properly considered alternatives and was fully free to decide that termination was appropriate. Angelia had been in foster care for almost four years, yet her parents, after having rejected an earlier return, requested an even further delay until some uncertain future date when, if all went well, Angelia could be returned to them. Such uncertainty conflicts with the intent of section 232 to afford children during their formative years a permanent, secure, and stable environment. ( In re Lynna B., supra, 92 Cal. App.3d at pp. 698-699; In re David B., supra, 91 Cal. App.3d at p. 195; see generally Goldstein et al. and Wald.)