Parental Rights Termination in CA is Unconstitutional

We the undersigned, are requesting the California Supreme Court grant a review for dependency case# DP012674.

This case is important in that it highlights the systematic abuse of dependency laws in the State of California by the Department of Children and Family Services and the lower Courts.

The PROPER FEDERAL LEGAL STANDARD OF PROOF required by the U.S. Constitution is clear and convincing evidence before a court may terminate a parent's rights (Santosky v. Kramer, supra, 455 U.S.).

Due process requires a higher standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence to be applied to the dependency court's final decision not to return a child to parental custody, either at the 12- or 18-month status review hearing. (see Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 242).

Additionally, the existence of a successful relationship between a foster child and foster parent cannot be the sole basis for terminating parental rights or depriving the natural parent of custody in a dependency proceeding.

A child's interest in stability does not out-weight the parent's interests in the care and custody of the child.

%u201C"[A]t the point that the court is to hear a subsequent action for termination of parental rights, it is clear that the court may find that the child's interest in stability outweighs the parent's interest in the care and custody of the child." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 425.) This statement suggests that a finding of parental unfitness is not required and that termination is to be determined by the child's best interests. This creates an inconsistency in the majority opinion. It is also wrong.%u201D In re. Jasmon O., 8 Cal. 4th 398, Dissenting Opinion.

Dependency proceedings are becoming more and more a %u201Cconveyor belt%u201D leading to the termination of parental rights. Even in the face of compelling evidence that the parent is no longer fit, has complied with all aspects of his/her case plan, and has maintained regular contact with his/her child and there exists a strong loving bond, the Court will STILL terminate the parent's rights simply because the parent has not received the blessings of the DCFS and/or the court does not %u201Cthink%u201D it is in the %u201Cbest interest of the child at this point.%u201D

The situation is particularly aggravated by the fact that the State is not so much acting in the best interest of the child as was presumed when the California Dependency Laws were created, but the DCFS is equally if not more so motivated by federal and state monetary gains from adopting out children and they are clever at manipulating the system so that the parent is stuck in the system for a sufficient period of time to allow him/her to bond with his/her foster/adoptive family and allowing the parent's time to run out, often times refusing to allow the parent unmonitored visits and thereby denying the parent any chance to prove they are capable of caring for their child. Furthermore, the Department has full time Counsel representation who knows the loopholes and %u201Cbuzzwords%u201D to win a case even in the absence of real supporting evidence. Trial Courts and even Courts of Appeals are no longer siding with the parent and the balance is now so tilted against the family that any parent who enters the system now is at the complete mercy of the DCFS and if their child is adoptable, it is a sure guarantee he will be!

We the undersigned are asking this Honorable Court to set a precedence and put an end to this NOW before any more irreparable damage is created to this country.